spoliation advisory panel

Resolved,
	That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report from the Right Honourable Sir David Hirst, Chairman of the Spoliation Advisory Panel, in respect of pieces of porcelain now in the possession of the British Museum, London, and the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. — [Ms Diana R. Johnson.]

Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Food and Agriculture Organisation

Hugh Bayley: What conclusions were reached at the recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation conference in Rome.

Douglas Alexander: International agreement was reached on the urgent need for co-ordinated action to combat the impact of high food prices on the world's poor: in the short term, to address immediate food security needs and in the longer term, to increase agricultural productivity in developing countries, including through agricultural research, improved policies, a rapid and successful conclusion to the Doha trade round and reduced use of restrictive measures that increase price volatility.

Hugh Bayley: Climate change is forcing up agricultural and food prices throughout the world. The Secretary of State is right to say that increasing agricultural productivity, particularly in Africa, is important. What is his Department doing to progress that?

Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend is correct in recognising that the challenge of replicating the agrarian revolution witnessed in India two or three decades ago will be made significantly harder in Africa by the changes in climate that are anticipated. That is why, as a Department, we are taking forward work, not least on building capacity within African countries. We are committing £100 million to adaptation research over the coming five years, including £25 million already under way to support innovation and climate change adaptation in Africa.

Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that at present many small farmers in poor countries have difficulty purchasing even seed and fertiliser to ensure that they have a harvest? What can the Department for International Development do to ensure that they have the means and confidence to do that, and possibly some kind of insurance scheme to protect them against the possible collapse of prices at a later date that could force them into starvation?

Douglas Alexander: The right hon. Gentleman is of course right in recognising that input costs—principally as a consequence of rising energy prices and the consequential effects on fertiliser prices—are having an impact on the current planting season in Africa. That is why we continue to work closely, not simply with the World Food Programme on emergency food supplies, but with the World Bank, which is establishing a trust fund, and other international agencies to ensure that supplies are provided during the narrow window available for the next growing season. When in Rome, I took the opportunity to make clear our commitment to social protection and cash transfer schemes, which can make a difference in ensuring that smallholders are able to sustain their livelihoods even in these challenging times.

John Battle: At the meeting in Rome, was there discussion of the current drought in Ethiopia, which has left 3.4 million people without food or food aid? What can our Government do to help?

Douglas Alexander: I can give my right hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. As a matter of urgency, I discussed the emerging problems in Ethiopia with Josette Sheeran, the director of the World Food Programme. As a Department, we have already committed £5 million to the first flash appeal for Ethiopia by the World Food Programme. In addition, we anticipate that the Government of Ethiopia will issue a further appeal this week and we shall be providing up to £10 million in response to that appeal when we receive it.

Gary Streeter: I warmly welcome the recent summit in Rome and the fact that extra money was pledged to help with food security in countries that need it most—not least the extra £590 million from the United Kingdom that the right hon. Gentleman was able to pledge, which is most welcome. Can he tell us how he will make sure that the money gets through to farmers and food producers in time for the planting season and that it will not be siphoned off by Governments, as we well know can occur?

Douglas Alexander: A significant portion of the money that was announced is going into agricultural research. I arrived in Rome with a clear sense that we face three fundamental challenges—short, medium and long term. The short-term challenge is to make sure that we get immediate humanitarian relief to the up to 850 million people around the world who are vulnerable to hunger as a consequence of rising food prices. That is why we are working both with the World Bank and, in particular, to support the World Food Programme initiatives. Secondly, in the medium term, we need a successful conclusion to the Doha development round and we continue to champion that cause in international venues. Thirdly, we need a significant uplift in agricultural productivity, principally in sub-Saharan Africa, which is why we, as a Department, have committed up to £400 million to agricultural research over the coming years.

Tony Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend accept that market mechanisms will fail farmers in Africa and other parts of the world? Although it is right and proper that we pursue the Doha round and advances in agricultural technology, there should nevertheless be recognition of the need for proper protection for smaller and more marginal farmers if we are to guarantee local food security in marginal parts of the world.

Douglas Alexander: Of course we want protection and adequate supplies to be provided to those in need of either food or finance for subsistence, but three factors accounted for India's success in its agrarian revolution, to draw once again on that example. The first factor was improved infrastructure, the second was improved irrigation and the third was improved seed technology. That seems to hold powerful lessons for Africa, where there has been a decline rather than a rise in the rate of agricultural productivity in recent years. That is why we have placed such an emphasis on agricultural research for the years ahead.

Andrew Mitchell: As the Chairman of the International Development Committee made clear, shipping food to stress areas can often distort markets and undermine local production. Should not the key lesson for us from the Rome conference be that cash transfers and prioritising local, or at least regional, food purchases help to protect the most vulnerable from the dramatic price hikes taking place around the world?

Douglas Alexander: We often talk about consensus across the House on development issues; this would seem to be an example of an issue on which there is such consensus. We have been strongly encouraging the World Food Programme, in particular, to move towards local sourcing of food supplies instead of using its more traditional mechanism, which is to bring in wheat, often from America, or other supplies from around the globe. I do not think that the choice is between seeing an improvement in the functioning of the international agriculture market—that is why we want progress on the Doha round—and making sure that immediate emergency assistance is provided in the way that most supports the development of the local economies where food aid is provided.

Barry Gardiner: The Secretary of State is aware that for every 1 per cent. rise in food prices, an extra 16 million people go to bed hungry each night. Is he aware of the World Bank's latest research, which shows the link between biofuels and the land-use change that is causing the rise in food prices? What discussions has he had with his colleagues in the Department for Transport about the renewables obligation in that respect?

Douglas Alexander: The role of biofuels was of course an issue of some dispute at the Rome summit. A speech was made by President Lula, for example, who offered a strong defence of what he called the right type of biofuels. Much of the debate about biofuels, which needs to be better understood, is long on anecdote and short on fact. That is why the British Government have initiated the Gallagher review and I assure my hon. Friend that we are in discussions with the Department for Transport on that review. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has urged the World Bank to take forward work on understanding the impact of biofuels on land use and, more widely, on social sustainability. We are also in dialogue with the European Commission to see whether we can establish a European position on the issue.

Michael Moore: On that latter point, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that the subject is discussed with President Bush when he visits this weekend. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the World Food Programme produced a report this week that highlights the fact that in recent years, as prices for commodities have soared, the volume of aid provided has declined steeply. On food aid, will he give a commitment that his Department's purchasing power will be maintained, so that we can ensure that as prices continue to soar, the volume of British aid will not decline?

Douglas Alexander: In terms of the volume of British aid, the budget for the Department for International Development was set in the comprehensive spending review last July, and it remains the same. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that, in light of rising food prices, we need to consider where we need to do more in individual countries. That is why we have already supplemented the long-term support that we are offering to the people of Ethiopia with £5 million for humanitarian supplies that are partly in recognition of the significant rise in food prices that has taken place.
	The hon. Gentleman is also right to recognise that there appears to be a clear correlation between rising input costs, principally those for oil, and the level of hunger being witnessed; that point was made to me by Josette Sheeran when I met her in Rome. She said, "If I look at the oil price, I can immediately tell how many more poor people we will be dealing with through the World Food Programme." That is why I welcome the latest commitment that the Gulf states have given to support the flash appeal from the United Nations World Food Programme. I hope that that pattern will be continued in the years ahead.

Non-Governmental Organisations (Iraq)

David Anderson: What support his Department is providing to non-governmental organisations in Iraq.

Shahid Malik: Since 2004, the Department for International Development has provided £20.5 million to strengthen Iraqi civil society. Recipient organisations have included those working on minority and women's rights, as well as wider human rights. Current support includes a programme run by the BBC World Service Trust to foster an independent media in Iraq. DFID is also providing £17 million this year for humanitarian assistance, much of which is allocated, either directly or through the UN, to non-governmental organisations in Iraq.

David Anderson: I thank the Minister for that response. Is he aware that last year his Department withdrew funding from support for trade union development in Iraq because of the
	"sectarian violence engulfing the country at the moment"?
	Clearly, the security situation is better now. Will he agree to meet trade unions from Iraq and Britain to try to move the issue forward again?

Shahid Malik: Trade unions are a vital part of any democracy. That is why my hon. Friend is right to say that, between 2004 and 2007, DFID provided through Unison training for trade union leaders and helped to establish a trade union resource centre in Iraq. This programme came to a natural end in 2007, which coincided with a spike in violence preventing us from renewing the programme. Since then we have successfully focused on supporting the Iraqi Government to provide essential services to their own people and stimulating private sector investment. In April, I met Governor al-Waili, the governor of Basra, who expressed his optimism about the future of Iraq. I assure my hon. Friend that as security improves, we will continue to assess how we can best support increased prosperity and stability in Iraq, including opportunities to work with trade unions.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: According to  The Independent on 6 June, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York holds £25 billion worth of Iraqi oil reserves, so what are the British Government doing to facilitate the release of some of that money, in a planned programme, to the Iraqi Government and to the NGOs involved, in order to relieve suffering in a country where 2 million people have been displaced from their homes and millions more lack basic services? Would that not help to establish much greater stability in that country, where the people have suffered for far too long?

Shahid Malik: The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the suffering of the people of Iraq. That is why, since 2003, the Department and the Government have provided £149 million in humanitarian assistance. With respect to the US Federal Reserve, it is not for us to comment on negotiations between the US military and the Iraqi Government. Needless to say, we are in close contact with the US and Iraq as they formulate their views on the detail and structure of their long-term relationship. I assure the House that we will ensure that future civilian assistance and any future military assistance to Iraq will be based on a sound legal and political footing.

Burma

Tony Baldry: What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in Burma; and if he will make a statement.

Douglas Alexander: Although access has improved, the situation remains extremely grave. The United Nations estimates that relief has reached 1.3 million of the 2.4 million people affected. Although there has been progress in access, more than 1 million people remain in need. Our priority therefore remains to get assistance to those who need it. We will continue to work with the UN to maintain pressure on the Burmese regime to meet its commitments.

Tony Baldry: If a Government, by wilful neglect, caused the loss of thousands of lives of a single ethnic group, that would be genocide. The loss of tens of thousands of lives caused by the Burmese Government hindering the international cyclone relief effort is seen by various members of the Security Council as simply an expression of Burma's national sovereignty. Does the Secretary of State agree that if Russia and China persist with that view of humanitarian relief, we will have an increasingly dysfunctional and fractured world?

Douglas Alexander: Of course, we want to see all Governments meet their obligations towards their people, not least in circumstances of a humanitarian crisis on that scale. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the United Kingdom Government have been at the forefront of efforts to raise the issue within the United Nations. I welcome the fact that the UN Secretary-General will be briefing the Security Council in the days ahead, following his visit to Burma. I can further confirm that we strongly urged the Secretary-General to take a personal interest in Burma and to visit Burma, not least given our concerns as to the importance of the crisis and on dealing with the crisis for the UN system more generally. Only yesterday, I spoke with the UN emergency co-ordinator, John Holmes. I also spoke to Dr. Surin, the secretary-general of the Association of South East Asian Nations, and urged both of them to continue their efforts through the UN-ASEAN bridge to ensure that, limited though it has been, we see significant uplifts in the level of access in the days ahead.

Jim Devine: Will my right hon. Friend tell me what agencies our Government are working with?

Douglas Alexander: We are working with long-established partners such as the Red Cross, Save the Children and Merlin, a range of organisations that have access to Burma. I assure my hon. Friend that we have worked hard to ensure that the aid that we are providing to those aid agencies is received by those aid agencies.

John Bercow: Given that anyone seeking to channel aid privately to cyclone victims in the Irrawaddy delta region is certain to face arrest, intimidation or at the very least obstruction, and that the Government of Burma preposterously are now claiming that they are ready to move from the relief phase to the reconstruction phase, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that British funds provided for the relief of suffering are not siphoned off by one of the most sadistic military dictatorships in the world in order to enrich itself rather than to help the people?

Douglas Alexander: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I hope he seeks; we are mindful of exactly that challenge. We have systems in place and are working continuously to ensure that the natural generosity of the British people is matched by the effectiveness of the aid that they are contributing through a range of organisations. As to whether we are now in the reconstruction rather than the relief phase, I have been categoric that, given the present level of unmet need, there is still an urgent requirement for international humanitarian agencies to provide emergency relief.

Gregory Campbell: The Secretary of State said that the UK is at the forefront of endeavours regarding Burma. Can he give us tangible expressions of the improvement in the situation since we came to the forefront between four weeks ago and today in terms of the level of humanitarian aid to the people of Burma?

Douglas Alexander: Let me give a couple of examples to the hon. Gentleman. We are the largest donor with contributions of £27.5 million, which manifests itself in 22 relief flights that have now landed in Burma thanks to the efforts that have been made. In terms of improvements, 10 World Food Programme helicopters are now operating within Burma, which we have been urging on and demanding of the Burmese Government for many days now. I hope that the fact that we now have airlift capability within the country will lead to a significant improvement in the effectiveness of the delivery of aid within the country.

Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the aid reaches those who need it within Burma, but that the aid workers are protected? At the same time, the big challenge is how we get a regime change by working with the likes of India and China. That is what we really need in Burma.

Douglas Alexander: When I met the UN Secretary-General when I attended the international conference at his request, I strongly urged him to visit Burma again this year, and I anticipate that he will return to Burma and maintain a close interest in this issue. If he does so, I hope that the focus of his visit will not be exclusively on humanitarian issues, but more broadly on the continuing political crisis afflicting the country.

Andrew Mitchell: Despite the junta's promise to the Secretary-General to grant full access to aid workers, it is clear that insufficient aid is getting through. Indeed, victims are being forced out of the makeshift camps. The Department's own website makes it clear that only 15 travel requests for internationals were accepted in the time between the Rangoon conference and 4 June. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that the international community has not merely had the wool pulled over its eyes by the Burmese generals?

Douglas Alexander: I assure the House that we continue to focus on this issue. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern in terms of the level of access that the international community wants, but, as I say, I have held further discussions within the past 24 hours with the emergency co-ordinator of the UN, John Holmes, and I have also spoken directly to Dr. Surin, the secretary-general of ASEAN. We will continue to focus on this issue to get the relief aid to those who so desperately need it.

Sexual Violence (Democratic Republic of the Congo)

John Barrett: What projects his Department is undertaking to seek to reduce levels of sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Gillian Merron: The UK Government programme to tackle sexual and gender-based violence includes £2 million of support to eastern DRC to promote justice, and £4 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross. The UK also funds medical and psycho-social care for victims, and we are working to reform the security and justice sector.

John Barrett: Rape has been used a weapon of war in the Congo, but now general lawlessness has broken out throughout the country. What can the Department do to strengthen the judicial system there and to make sure that women are a key part of that system?

Gillian Merron: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that rape is used as a weapon of war, but it has now gone beyond that in the DRC. It is used to humiliate and terrify, tearing up families and communities. We are working on a major programme to reform the security and justice sector. We need a well-run, trusted and accountable police force, army and supporting civil service; we are ensuring that victims also support the legal process; we are training magistrates; and we are lobbying for more prosecutions.

Ann McKechin: My hon. Friend— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should be heard. It is unfair that all these conversations are going on.

Ann McKechin: My hon. Friend will be aware that it is absolutely essential that women are involved in any solutions to achieve security in areas such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The United Kingdom has been ahead of the game in having a national plan on United Nations Security Council resolution 1325, but as yet, none of the international forces, either at NATO or UN level, has such a plan. Will my hon. Friend persuade international forces that now is the time to prepare a UN plan on Security Council resolution 1325?

Gillian Merron: We will certainly continue our efforts. I agree with my hon. Friend that what we see in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are some of the highest rates of sexual violence against women and girls in the world, so our commitment to tackling the issue is absolutely crucial. Underlying all that is our dealing with the root causes of the conflict and addressing the humanitarian situation there. In all those ways, we also seek to empower women to take control over their own lives.

Mark Pritchard: Although I welcome the arrest of former Vice-President Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, will the Minister commit the British Government to working closely with the International Criminal Court to ensure that others in Kinshasa, and also Bangui, are brought before the court?

Gillian Merron: I certainly will draw those comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary

Zimbabwe

Ann Clwyd: If he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe.

Douglas Alexander: The humanitarian situation is deteriorating. Four million people relied on food aid last year. The fact that President Mugabe has now stopped aid agencies from distributing food and engaging in other humanitarian activities is indefensible. That decision by Mugabe has impacted on 2 million people already, and as we approach the hungry season, that number could rise to 4 million or even higher.

Ann Clwyd: While I was in South Africa a few weeks ago, Zimbabwean refugees handed me a note for 10 million Zimbabwean dollars. That buys a bag of tomatoes in Zimbabwe. Now Mugabe is prepared to starve his people to death for their votes. What kind of human being is President Mugabe?

Douglas Alexander: It is morally indefensible to use the threat of hunger as a political weapon, and that is exactly what Robert Mugabe has shown himself to be willing to do in recent days. Hyper-inflation is but one manifestation of the chronic misrule that he has visited on a country that was previously the bread-basket of southern Africa. That is why I took the opportunity last Thursday to meet in South Africa both the Government of South Africa and the president of the African National Congress to press them to continue to engage with that vital international issue.

Nicholas Winterton: Is not the Secretary of State desperately saddened that Robert Mugabe, who lost the presidential election in Zimbabwe, should strut the stage at the Food and Agriculture Organisation conference in Rome, particularly as he is denying to his country and its starving people access to the aid that so many countries and aid agencies want to provide to help the people of Zimbabwe?

Douglas Alexander: Mugabe's attendance was not only inappropriate but, in light of his subsequent actions, morally repugnant. The fact is that somebody who is willing to use the threat of starvation has little credibility or authority to lecture anybody on food prices or production. There is little comfort regarding the current situation in Zimbabwe, but my comfort is that a matter of weeks after the first election, even Robert Mugabe and his closest associates have been unable to claim that they were chosen by the people of Zimbabwe in that last election. We continue to be committed to ensuring that the people of Zimbabwe are able to have their democratic will expressed in their choice of Government.

Tom Clarke: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what impact the Government's new strategy will have on tackling HIV/AIDS in Zimbabwe?

Douglas Alexander: We launched the latest HIV/AIDS strategy for the British Government only last week. Zimbabwe is one of the countries in southern Africa that has been most devastated by that affliction. I will ensure that a copy of the report is provided to my right hon. Friend so that he is fully updated on the actions that we are taking.

Sexual Exploitation of Children

Stephen Crabb: If he will make representations to the United Nations to investigate allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse of children by UN workers and others engaged in humanitarian programmes.

Gareth Thomas: The UK takes all allegations of misconduct by peacekeepers and aid workers seriously. We fully support the UN Secretary-General's zero-tolerance policy towards sexual exploitation and abuse and we work to ensure that the highest standards of conduct are required of UN personnel.

Stephen Crabb: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, we have been here before. The UN talks of zero tolerance, but not a single prosecution has ever been brought against a UN peacekeeper or UN member of staff for the kind of abhorrent crimes identified by Save the Children last week. So will the Minister today promise that not one additional penny of British aid will go to the UN until he receives an assurance from the Secretary-General that he will get a grip on his organisation and prevent members of his personnel from hiding behind legal immunity to carry out such crimes against the children they are mandated to protect?

Gareth Thomas: There has been a significant improvement in the UN's response to these allegations. The Save the Children report is nevertheless a timely reminder of the need to continue to do more to promote the highest standards among all humanitarian workers and peacekeepers. We will meet the UN Secretary-General next week and raise with him again the issues in the Save the Children report.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Greg Hands: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 June.

Gordon Brown: Before listing my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in sending our profound condolences to the families and friends of Privates Nathan Cuthbertson, Daniel Gamble and David Murray of the Parachute Regiment, who were killed in Helmand province, Afghanistan, on Sunday. The risks they bear and the sacrifices they have made are in our thoughts, not just today but every day, and we owe them all a great debt of gratitude.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Greg Hands: May I join the Prime Minister in offering condolences to the soldiers' families?
	The biography on the Prime Minister's website records no achievements in the past year, but it does boast about his popularity as a schoolboy. We are told that he
	"joined in every aspect of school life, quickly becoming popular".
	Given the Stalinist adulation from the past, can he explain why this week he has become Britain's least popular Prime Minister ever?

Gordon Brown: I shall leave the schoolboy politics to the hon. Gentleman. On a day when we are debating national security, I would have thought that he could do better than that.

George Howarth: I am sure that the whole House would wish to be identified with my right hon. Friend's comments about the brave soldiers who lost their lives in Afghanistan.
	Does my right hon. Friend agree that the question of up to 42 days' detention for terrorist suspects is more a matter of practical necessity than high principle?

Gordon Brown: It is a matter of necessity because of what the police and the security services have told us. Every senior policeman and every senior member of the security services has told us— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are going to begin today by allowing the Prime Minister to speak.  [ Interruption. ] Order. I have told the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) before not to interrupt the proceedings, and I have often told him that he has defied the Chair. He will not do it today, or he will be out of the Chamber.

Gordon Brown: I would have thought that there would be agreement across the whole House that the first duty of a Government is to protect the national security of our country. I would be failing in my duty if I did not report to the House the advice of the police and security services, but I was about to go on to say that I do not rely on that entirely. We have seen in the recent cases that have come before us the amount, sophistication and complexity of evidence that has to be assessed. I refer the House to the airport case in 2006, in which there were 400 computers, 8,000 CDs and 25,000 exhibits. That is why some of the people who were detained were detained for 27 days. I have no doubt that the sophistication and complexity of these cases will require us to do more in future years. That is not only the advice of the police—that is the judgment that I make from having to look at terrorist cases every week.

David Cameron: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Privates Cuthbertson, Gamble and Murray of 2 Para, who were killed on Sunday. Every week, quite rightly, we stand here and read out the names of those who have fallen, and we must remember every week that behind every name are family and friends who are suffering the loss of a loved one. The Prime Minister and I have both visited Afghanistan. We know that our soldiers are doing incredible work in difficult conditions on our behalf, and, quite simply, they are the best of British.
	I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree with me that it is clear why we are there. If we go, the Taliban come back, the training camps come back and there will be more terrorists on British streets. But after seven years of work in Afghanistan, can the Prime Minister give us a frank and candid assessment today, not just of where we are doing well, but where much more work needs to be done?

Gordon Brown: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says about the contribution of our troops and the bravery of all our servicemen and women who serve in Afghanistan and every theatre of the world. In Afghanistan, we are making progress in training the Afghan army and police, and in building economic and social development, which means that people in Afghanistan have a stake in the future. In the Afghan elections, 70 per cent. of registered voters voted, so Afghanistan became a democracy, and it was shown to be so by the elections. When the Taliban were in power, there were only 2 million children in education—none of them girls. Today, there are 6 million children in education and 2 million of them are girls, which is a result of the changes that we are making.
	I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a long haul, but our duty is to stop the Taliban ever gaining power again and to stop al-Qaeda making inroads into Afghanistan. That is why 43 countries are part of the coalition in Afghanistan.

David Cameron: I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. I have seen the work of training the Afghan army, which is fantastic, and I have seen some of the schools that have been built, but is there not a risk that while we are winning militarily in Afghanistan, we are losing at least parts of the country? Has he heard the reports that the security situation around Kabul is deteriorating, and that corruption is paralysing the work of the Afghan Government? I am even told that some of the roads that we have built are being used by the Taliban and other bandits to extort money from ordinary Afghans, who are too terrified to use them. It is now six months since the Prime Minister made a full statement in the House about Afghanistan. Does he not agree with me that one of the lessons from Iraq is that it is only by being candid and frank, and by giving regular updates, that we can take the British people with us in this vital task?

Gordon Brown: I am very happy to give the right hon. Gentleman regular updates of what is happening in Afghanistan, and the Secretary of State for Defence has just returned from Afghanistan where he was looking at the situation on the ground. Nobody is saying that the position in Afghanistan is easy, and everybody knows that in the spring attacks by the Taliban start again, but last year, because of the action against drugs and heroin, the number of poppy-free provinces doubled to 13. We hope this year to see more progress. It is not a case of things going backward; it is a case of us seeing progress. Our strategy, set out in December, which was the "Afghanisation" of the army and the police force, with people being trained by British forces and other troops, and with the police being trained through an operation led by the German police, is gaining ground. Our aim is that Afghans take more and more responsibility for their own affairs. We are able to tackle corruption by opening up local as well as national Government, and we invest, as we have in the dam project, in the economic and social development of Afghanistan.
	I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that if he is doubting the reason for being there—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Okay, the reason for being there is that we cannot allow the Taliban to get back into power, and we cannot allow al-Qaeda to get a grip on the province.

David Cameron: I do not think that there is a big level of disagreement. All I am saying is that this is the No. 1 foreign policy priority and the No. 1 national security priority, and we must make sure that everything that the Government do reminds the nation of that.
	I turn to the issue of the Government's proposal to ask MPs to vote tonight on holding people for six weeks before they are charged. This is an enormous step to take, and we need the strongest possible evidence before the Government can take it. How can the Prime Minister think that the case has really been made, when his own Director of Public Prosecutions—the very man responsible for prosecuting terrorists and the man who carries the can if it does not happen—does not support the measure?

Gordon Brown: We have made a judgment, after looking at all the evidence, including the evidence from the police and security services, that this is the right thing to do. I would not want to have to come to the House in a moment of emergency and ask for extraordinary powers, when we could, in a period of calmness, build in a process that will not give the oxygen of publicity to terrorists when we have to take action. The right hon. Gentleman said:
	"When it comes to our national security, I will always listen to the police and security services, and take their advice with the utmost seriousness."
	Ken Jones, the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, has made it clear what the police think about the proposal. Hugh Orde, the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, has made his position clear. Lord Stevens, the man the right hon. Gentleman says he listens to on police matters, says in  The Times today that
	"there will be really exceptional cases where the Police Service will need to go beyond 28 days."
	Taking into account the advice of the police and security services, but also looking at the weight, complexity and sophistication of the evidence that must be examined, it seems to me that we should put in place the legislation in a moment of calm. I do not want, in a moment of panic, for people to have to come to the House to bring in emergency legislation.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister says that he does not want to come to the House in a moment of difficulty, but under the concession that he is making that is exactly what he is going to have to do. He would have a stronger argument if he had genuinely lined up, if you like, a phalanx of the police, the prosecutors and the security services in favour of his case, but he has not. Yes, there are a lot of police who support it, but there are a lot who do not. When it comes to the prosecuting authorities, they do not support his case, and when it comes to the Security Service, it has not said that it has asked for this step. The Prime Minister has not made the case that the proposal is necessary. Is there not a danger that as well as being unnecessary, it will be counter-productive? When former Attorneys-General and soldiers who served against the IRA in Northern Ireland are all saying that this sort of measure could help the terrorists rather than hurt them, are we not taking a bad step? Is it not clear that the terrorists want to destroy our freedom, and that when we trash our liberties we do their work for them?

Gordon Brown: The Chief Constable of Northern Ireland does not need lectures about taking on terrorism. What he said is:
	"Sadly, the day will come when 28 will not be high enough...but we have to plan for it."
	That is precisely what I am saying to the House today. Our first duty is the protection of national security. We fail in our duty if we do not take preventive measures. I say in sorrow rather than anger that it is no use having opposition for opposition's sake. We must take no risks with security.

David Cameron: This party does not need any reminders about the importance of fighting terrorism. The first Member of Parliament I ever wrote a speech for, Ian Gow, was murdered by the IRA. The first Member of Parliament who ever represented me, Airey Neave, is commemorated above that Door, murdered by the IRA. But we will not fight terrorism effectively if we undermine our liberties.
	Let us have a look at one of the concessions that the Prime Minister has made. He proposes parliamentary debate immediately following what could be an individual case. Will he tell us how on earth that is going to work? Will Members of Parliament not want to ask the Home Secretary questions that she cannot answer without prejudicing a trial? In his attempt to save the totem of 42 days, has not the Prime Minister made so many concessions that he has an unworkable piece of legislation? Should not every MP in the House be thinking that this issue is not about the future of the Prime Minister but about our liberties, and should they not vote with their consciences?

Gordon Brown: It cannot be both draconian and absolutely useless in dealing with the problem.  [ Interruption. ] No. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know what is disturbing the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), but I will run the proceedings here.

Gordon Brown: I have to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the former head of counter-terrorism has said that we will undoubtedly need this power. The former head of MI5 says that if 42 days is not adopted, regret it we will. Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer, says:
	"My view is that the government is right to extend it beyond 28 days."
	The Conservative party's members' website, ConservativeHome, also said this morning:
	"A clear majority of the British people favour a longer detention period. We believe that the British people are right. They won't readily forgive any politicians who allow a major atrocity to occur because our detention procedures prove to be inadequate."
	The right hon. Gentleman must answer also to members of his own party.

David Cameron: That last bit is so below the level of debate— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

David Cameron: If the Prime Minister is saying that it is popular to announce that you are going to bang up terrorist suspects for longer without charging them, he is right; it is popular, but the point is that we in the House are meant to do what is right. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is impossible to be draconian and incompetent at the same time, but is not that exactly what the Prime Minister has achieved? We have a symbolic assault on our liberty that is unnecessary; we have a change in the law that many people, including the former chief inspector of constabulary, say is counter-productive; and we have a procedure that is unworkable. Is not the only way to describe what the Prime Minister is doing today as ineffective authoritarianism? When there is no firm evidence in favour of extending detention in a free and democratic country, should not a supposedly progressive Prime Minister come down on the side of liberty?

Gordon Brown: The protections for civil liberties built into the Bill are greater than at any time when we have dealt with terrorist legislation. The Director of Public Prosecutions has to approve the order; it has to come before Parliament with an independent legal opinion; the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee have to be informed; an independent reviewer has to look at all circumstances of the case; Parliament has got to vote on the issue; and a judge has to look at the case every seven days. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the civil liberties protections in this legislation are greater than ever before. I do not like opposition for opposition's sake. We should be facing up to an issue of national security. I would like to have achieved a consensus above party politics, but because it has been impossible to do so, the Government must make a judgment. The judgment is not that this is popular, but that it is right and necessary for the security of our country.

Kali Mountford: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have been impressed by the incredible courage of Adrian Sudbury, who is using the last weeks of his life to campaign for more bone marrow donors to come forward. I have been impressed by the response so far of the Secretaries of State for Children, Schools and Families and for Health, but what more can my right hon. Friend do to help my friend Adrian to achieve his legacy and help 7,000 people to live?

Gordon Brown: I, too, have met and seen the courage of Mr. Sudbury who, as my hon. Friend says, is using the last few weeks of his life to try to make people better aware of the dangers that result when bone marrow donation is not available. The promotion of the donation of blood, bone marrow and organs is a priority for the Department of Health. We are looking at what we can do. The key issue is whether we can encourage people to be donors. I believe that in the next few months we will be able to put proposals that will assist, if not Mr. Sudbury, many other people who suffer as a result of these illnesses.

Nicholas Clegg: I would like to add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of Privates Nathan Cuthbertson, Daniel Gamble and David Murray.
	Does the Prime Minister accept that irrespective of whether this House has seven days or 30 days to approve the extension of the period of detention without charge, it is not possible to provide us with sufficient evidence and information to make that judgment without either making covert intelligence public or jeopardising the legal case against a terrorist suspect?

Gordon Brown: The purpose of this coming before the House is for the Home Secretary to advise us that, in her view, there is an exceptional terrorist threat—a grave terrorist threat that either has occurred or is occurring—and that the need for action is urgent, but that it has not been possible to assemble the necessary evidence to lay charges within the 28 days. It will then be for the House to vote on the commencement order and agree that an exceptional terrorist incident has occurred. It is not the business of the House to interfere in the individual case, but it should be able to vote simply on whether an exceptional and grave terrorist threat has occurred. Given that the right hon. Gentleman and others have referred to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 in discussing this issue, I would hope that he understands that this is exactly the same problem that has to be faced in respect of that Act.

Nicholas Clegg: Everyone knows that the Prime Minister's proposal will not become law—it will be blocked in the other place, the Equality and Human Rights Commission will challenge it in court and the European Court of Human Rights will declare it illegal—so why on earth is he playing politics with our liberties for a Bill that no one thinks is necessary, no one thinks will work in practice and everyone knows will never reach the statute book?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman says no one thinks the proposal is necessary, but has he looked at what police chief constables have said? Has he looked at the statements that have been made by those people who have dealt with terrorism? It is quite wrong to say that no one thinks it is necessary. Indeed, a Liberal Democrat candidate in Bristol did a survey of all his constituents: 74 per cent.—  [Interruption.] Well, 74 per cent. said they were in favour and that
	"The complexity of potential terrorist threats means that the police will need the additional time."
	It is not only popular; it is necessary and right. There are many people who disagree with the right hon. Gentleman profoundly.

Jim Sheridan: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the proposed 42-day detention orders will apply only to those who wish to bring terror to the streets and will not impact in any way on the human rights and civil liberties of decent, hard-working British families, and that they will not have police posted outside their houses in riot gear and not have their villages or communities blockaded, as during the miners' strike? Perhaps colleagues and comrades on this side of the House will reflect on that when they are going through—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is restricted not just to a terrorist threat, but to an exceptional and grave terrorist threat. It is stated clearly in the Bill that this is a reserve power. It is up to 42 days only under the most extreme of circumstances. I repeat to the House that the protections for civil liberties that are built into the Bill, which require the Home Secretary to act and not to have arbitrary treatment, are the greatest that we have seen when dealing with terrorist threats. I believe that we have managed to combine the need to take action that is preventive in case there is a terrorist threat to our country with the protection of civil liberties against arbitrary treatment. That is what we will continue to do.

David Gauke: The Prime Minister might not have had an opportunity to see Monday evening's documentary entitled "Gordon Brown, Where Did It All Go Wrong?"—  [Interruption.] I do not know why Labour MPs are complaining. Half the Cabinet were happy to appear in it, including the Chancellor, who made it clear that, from last summer, he knew that millions would lose out because of the abolition of the 10p rate of income tax. Given that, why did the Prime Minister consistently deny that there would be any losers from his tax reform package?

Gordon Brown: Some 22 million people have benefited from the tax cut that we have just announced. In the 2008 Budget, £3 billion extra went to the poorest sections of our community. I do not think that the House will listen to Conservative Members, who have not even made a commitment to the abolition of child poverty, lecturing us about what is done for the low paid in this country.

Celia Barlow: I am sure that the House will join me, in national carers week, in my admiration for the 6 million unsung heroes who are looking after their loved ones and in giving thanks for the £225 million of extra Government money announced yesterday, but as life expectancy is increasing, carers are retiring and still looking after their parents. Will the Prime Minister please tell me what extra measures he has in place, and will have in place, for those elderly carers?

Gordon Brown: I was proud to host a reception yesterday for national carers week and to see the publication by the Minister for Social Care of our new carers strategy. There are 6 million people in our country who are giving of their time to care for relatives, friends or neighbours, and they do so in a caring and compassionate way, which makes us proud of the whole people of Britain.
	As part of national carers week, we have issued our national carers strategy. That will provide additional money for breaks for carers, respite care, for carers to re-enter the job market if they have been carers in the past and support for young carers. We are looking at the carers grant and what we can do for carers in retirement. We will report back to the House on these matters.

James Clappison: If the Irish people have been permitted a referendum, why cannot the British people be permitted one? After all, the Prime Minister and other Labour Members stood in the last general election on the basis of a manifesto that promised to put the constitutional treaty to the British people in a referendum.

Gordon Brown: There are 27 countries in the European Union. Only one requires, under its constitution, every item of constitutional change to be put before the people in a referendum. Nine countries proposed a referendum; then the treaty was changed. This treaty does not represent a fundamental change in the constitutional arrangements. That is why the right place in which to debate it was the House of Commons, where we debated it for many days and where the Government's proposals won the vote.

Dawn Butler: Knife crime, mental illness and youth activities are just some of the issues being debated on www.mylifemysay.co.uk, an online discussion forum for young people. Some of those young people will be coming to Parliament to discuss the issues in front of Ministers and Members of Parliament. Will my right hon. Friend assist the discussion by telling them where the money came from to provide free swimming, and whether further money will be available to fund other activities?

Gordon Brown: It is because of our success in running the economy that we have been able to provide additional money for public services. In seeking to provide youth centres in all the constituencies in the country, we are looking at dormant accounts in banks and building societies and discussing them with those organisations. We believe that there are substantial funds that should be made available. We want to use those funds to transform youth facilities in every constituency in the country, just as we have transformed care of the under-fives in the last 10 years.

Michael Howard: May I give the Prime Minister a third opportunity to answer a fundamental question that he has conspicuously failed to answer twice so far? [Interruption.] Can he explain— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Members must allow the right hon. and learned Gentleman to speak.

Michael Howard: Can the Prime Minister explain— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that Members must allow the right hon. and learned Gentleman to speak. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) should not be putting his tuppence worth in.

Michael Howard: Can the Prime Minister explain how the House could debate and vote on the detention of a person without charge for up to six weeks without prejudicing any subsequent trial of that person?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows a lot about not answering questions.  [Laughter.] I can tell him that he has misunderstood the legislation. It requires the Home Secretary to present to the House a statement showing that there is an exceptional and grave terrorist threat and that the need for action is urgent, and she must ask the House to support the action that she has taken. The legislation does not require discussion of the individual detainees; that would be wrong. The purpose of this legislation, like that of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, is to get the House to agree that these special measures are needed. That is the purpose of the debate, and that is the right way to proceed.

Mark Hendrick: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the University of Central Lancashire? Since 1828, when it was the Institution for The Diffusion of Knowledge, it has developed into one of the largest universities in the United Kingdom. It now provides education and skills training for more than 21,000 students, 2,500 of whom are in mainland China.

Gordon Brown: I am proud that the number of universities in our country is growing, and that the number of students in our country can grow as a result of the proposals of the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills. The University of Central Lancashire, with its 21,000 students, is another university that is giving young people opportunities that they have never had before. I hope that we shall be able to announce the provision of 20 more university campuses, so that every major town and city in the country is properly served by higher education.

Paul Burstow: Every year 342,000 older people in the country are victims of abuse, including crimes such as intimidation, theft and assault. Tens of thousands of older people with dementia are routinely prescribed unlicensed drugs that keep them sedated and cut their lives short. Will the Prime Minister take action to close the loopholes in the law that allow the victims to go unprotected and the perpetrators to go unpunished, and will he meet me and a delegation to discuss what else needs to be done to tackle elder abuse?

Gordon Brown: I shall be prepared to talk to the hon. Gentleman about this matter. We are about to propose an NHS constitution. Our aim is to guarantee rights to every person who is a patient of the NHS, and I believe that whatever he is revealing about what happens to elderly people can be dealt with as part of the rights in that constitution.

Richard Burden: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may know that a number of newspapers in Birmingham and elsewhere have suggested in the past 24 hours that the national challenge announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families will threaten hundreds of schools with closure, including 27 in Birmingham. Will he confirm that that is certainly not the plan's intention and that, rather, the aim is to work with teachers and parents, most of whom are already making huge efforts to do the right thing by children and raise standards? In other words, the intention is to avoid school closures, not the opposite.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The national challenge is intended to raise every school in this country to a higher standard. In particular, the aim is to deal with failing schools and to make sure that their results are better. Whatever action needs to be taken in terms of replacing head teachers or improving the service is part of the national challenge. I can also tell him that, in this and other areas, more money is being injected into the school system to make that increase in standards possible. We want every school pupil in the country to get the best possible education.

Pete Wishart: It is forecast that the Treasury is set to secure a windfall of anything between £4 billion and £6 billion as a result of the increased price of a barrel of North sea oil, yet Scotland has secured absolutely no benefit from that rise. Norway's oil fund is worth some £186 billion, and even non-independent Alberta has an oil fund of £8.8 billion. Given that windfall, surely it is time for a Scottish oil fund. If the Prime Minister continues to say no to Scotland on this issue, the Scottish people will say no to him and goodbye to some of his Back Benchers.

Gordon Brown: We are one United Kingdom, and we share the risks, rewards and resources throughout the UK. It is because we are one United Kingdom that Scotland has 200,000 more jobs than it had in 1997. Scotland has never been better off, as a result of a Labour Government.

DNA Database (Removal of Samples)

Jennifer Willott: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the removal from the DNA Database of DNA samples taken from individuals who are not charged or are acquitted; and for connected purposes.
	Everyone accepts that DNA has been a massive breakthrough in crime detection, helping to solve the crimes of today and also some of the cold cases from 20 to 30 years ago. However, the Government have pursued this breakthrough in a disproportionate way.
	The UK has by far the largest DNA database in the world, with 4.5 million people registered. Proportionally, five times more people are on our database than is the case with the next closest country. We think of the US as having a punitive criminal justice system, but less than 1 per cent. of its population is on the US database, whereas we have around 6 per cent. Moreover, it has been estimated that under current laws, the database will expand to include one in four of our adult male population.
	The number of children on the database is particularly worrying. At the moment, it is estimated that it contains entries for more than 700,000 people who were under 18 when they were arrested and their DNA was taken. In case hon. Members think that some of them might have deserved what they got, I should add that there are estimated to be more than 100,000 children under 18 on the database who have never been convicted, cautioned or charged with any offence.
	I am sure all hon. Members will have seen various crazy cases across the country. There are examples from every constituency. A quick trawl of press clippings threw up the case of three children who were hauled into a police station because they climbed a cherry tree to build a tree house. They were arrested for criminal damage and had their DNA taken, but the case was never taken any further. Another example is the 14-year-old boy who was a victim of mistaken identity when teachers at his school gave police the wrong name after a brawl between pupils.
	Even after admitting they had arrested the wrong boy, the police refused to remove his DNA. Whereas in the past schoolboy fights, high jinks and lads climbing trees would have resulted in a stern word and them being taken home, children are now getting criminal records and their DNA is being held on the database for ever.
	We should also be worried about the sheer number of ethnic minorities on the database and the racial imbalance. Almost 40 per cent. of black men have their DNA profile held, compared with 13 per cent. of Asian men and 9 per cent. of white men, despite the fact that there is no evidence that black men disproportionately commit crime. In fact, evidence suggests that white men are more likely to offend than black men. This over-representation of black men creates mistrust and continues to fuel problems that are much larger, such as the disproportionate representation of black men in our criminal justice system. Also, problems of race relations, community cohesion and discrimination, either perceived or real, are made worse. Moreover, the situation is getting worse. At the current rate, more than half of all black men will be on the database within two years.
	This highlights one of the main objections to holding the DNA of those who are not charged or who are acquitted. One of the fundamental tenets of British justice is "innocent until proven guilty". Refusing to destroy samples taken from those who are never charged or who are later acquitted completely blurs that principle. The DNA database assumes that people will be guilty of something in the future; that is why the samples are kept. This is very Big Brother; George Orwell must be spinning in his grave.
	When the national DNA database was created in 1995, only the DNA of convicted offenders could be held, and samples had to be destroyed if the suspect was acquitted or charges were dropped. Because by 2001 the Government were breaking their own law—presumably as a result of incompetence rather than design—the law was changed to allow the profiles of those acquitted of certain crimes to be kept. That was expanded even more in 2004, when samples could be taken from anyone arrested for a recordable offence. By the end of 2005, 200,000 samples that would have been destroyed before 2001 had been retained, and that number has since soared. There are now estimated to be more than 1 million people who have not been charged or convicted on the database—three times the population of a city the size of Cardiff, where I live. Those are 1 million people considered innocent under British law, but considered potentially guilty by the Home Office. By retaining that DNA, the state is saying, "Well, you might not have been convicted, but we think you may commit an offence in future and we want to make sure we can catch you when you do." That is not acceptable.
	It is almost impossible, however, for someone to remove their sample from the database. Since the changes in 2004, fewer than 700 people have managed to remove their profiles—700 out of the 1 million innocent people on the database. The police control which samples are removed. People have to apply to the chief constable of the force that took the sample in the first place, who is hardly an independent arbiter. The Government may be forced to change this shortly, as there is a case before the European Court of Human Rights, brought by two men from Sheffield—one of whom was under 18 at the time—who have applied to have their DNA removed on the grounds that they were both cleared and neither has a criminal record. The ECHR is expected to rule this summer, and a finding against the Government could open the floodgates on this issue.
	Even if some people might not agree with the civil liberties case for removing the DNA of innocent people, there is a very strong practical case. The Government have already said that they believe that the DNA of the majority of the active criminal population is now recorded, so why the mad rush to take samples from so many other people? The DNA database is not without cost. The costs of sampling increasing numbers, maintaining an expanding database and storing millions of samples will continue to grow.
	However, there is very little evidence that these increasing costs will have much of an impact on crime detection. Despite the massive expansion in the number of individuals on the database, the percentage of recorded crimes solved as a result of a DNA match has remained fairly constant; the figures I have seen show it to be below 0.4 per cent. A bigger difference has been made at the other end of DNA matching: at the crime scene. At present, fewer than 20 per cent. of crime scenes are forensically examined, and only a small proportion of them yield any biological material that is then tested. Clear-up rates are much higher when DNA is found at a crime scene, so should we not be putting resources into that end of things, rather than into collecting individuals' samples?
	One argument often used to justify the keeping of DNA is that it will help to solve cold cases, but that is fallacious. When someone is arrested and their DNA is taken, that should be tested against unidentified crime scene DNA, as is done. That will identify whether they have committed any unsolved crimes, and that is fine, but if they have not, holding their DNA after that point is irrelevant. In addition, the massive cost of holding the samples is borne by police forces. I am sure that I am not alone in thinking that the money might be better spent on front-line policing, to ensure that fewer crimes are committed and our communities are kept safe.
	Following the European case, the Government may have to change their policy anyway, but I would like to propose a solution. Some countries, such as Scotland, France and Canada, have legislated against retaining DNA samples from those who are acquitted. I believe we should follow their lead, and remove innocent people's DNA from the database. Samples and profiles should be destroyed if the individual is not convicted or cautioned, although there should be an exception for those accused of a violent or sexual offence. Their samples should be kept—not indefinitely, but for a specified time. In addition, all children under 16, unless guilty of a violent or sexual offence, should have their DNA removed from the database. If we treat them like criminals at such an early age, they may well go on to fulfil our expectations.
	We are talking about a huge number of people—1 million of them—whose deeply private information is being held by the Government when they have not been found to have done any wrong. That goes against fundamental British principles, as well as being a massive drain on public resources for little gain, and this Bill would rectify that injustice.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Jenny Willott, Sarah Teather, Tom Brake, Mr. Paul Burstow, Chris Huhne, David Howarth, Kelvin Hopkins, Keith Vaz, Mr. Gordon Prentice and Mr. Stephen Crabb.

DNA Database (Removal of Samples)

Jenny Willott accordingly presented a Bill to require the removal from the DNA Database of DNA samples taken from individuals who are not charged or are acquitted; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 October, and to be printed [Bill 118].

Orders of the Day

Counter-Terrorism Bill
	 — 
	[2nd Allotted Day]

As amended in the Public Bill Committee, further considered.
	 [Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: 42 Days, HC 156, the Ninth Report from the Committee, on Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Counter-Terrorism Bill, HC 199 and the Government Response, Cm. 7344, the Tenth Report from the Committee, on Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Annual Renewal of Control Orders Legislation 2008, HC 356, the Twentieth Report from the Committee, on Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: Counter-Terrorism Bill, HC 554, and the Government Response contained in the letter dated 5th June 2008 from Rt Hon Tony McNulty MP, Minister of State, Home Department, the Twenty-first Report from the Committee, on Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: 42 Days and Public Emergencies, HC 635 and the Government Response contained in the letter dated 6th June 2008 from Rt Hon Tony McNulty MP, the letter dated 4th June 2008 from Rt Hon Tony McNulty MP, on special advocates and control order legislation, the letter dated 4th June 2008 from Rt Hon Tony McNulty MP, on pre-charge detention: 28 days annual renewal, and the letter dated 9th June 2008 from the Chairman of the Committee to Rt Hon Jacqui Smith MP, Secretary of State for the Home Department. ]

New Clause 20
	 — 
	Grave exceptional terrorist threat

'(1) In this Act "grave exceptional terrorist threat" means an event or situation involving terrorism which causes or threatens—
	(a) serious loss of human life,
	(b) serious damage to human welfare in the United Kingdom, or
	(c) serious damage to the security of the United Kingdom.
	(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) an event or situation causes or threatens damage to human welfare only if it causes or threatens—
	(a) human illness or injury,
	(b) homelessness,
	(c) damage to property,
	(d) disruption of a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,
	(e) disruption of a system of communication,
	(f) disruption of facilities for transport, or
	(g) disruption of services relating to health.
	(3) The event or situation mentioned in subsection (1)—
	(a) may occur or be inside or outside the United Kingdom, and
	(b) may consist in planning or preparation for terrorism which if carried out would meet one or more of the conditions in that subsection.'.— [Jacqui Smith.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in subsection (1), leave out from 'which' to end and insert
	'amounts to a public emergency threatening the life of the nation, in accordance with Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights.'.
	Government new clause 21— Power to declare reserve power exercisable
	Government new clause 22— Report of operational need for further extension of maximum period of detention
	Government new clause 24— Notification of chairmen of certain committees
	Government new clause 25— Statement to be laid before Parliament
	Government new clause 26— Parliamentary scrutiny
	Government new clause 27— Parliamentary scrutiny: prorogation and adjournment
	Government new clause 28— Duration
	Government new clause 29— Independent review and report
	Government new clause 30— Amendment to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004
	Government new clause 32— Independent legal advice
	New clause 1— Extension of detention under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000—
	'(1) The Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, Part III (extension of detention under section 41) is amended as follows.
	(2) After sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 29 (warrants of further detention) there is inserted—
	"(7) Nothing in this Part is to be read as requiring the judicial authority to act in a manner inconsistent with the right of the specified person to a fully judicial procedure in Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights.".
	(3) After sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 31(notices) there is inserted—
	"(e) a statement of the suspicion which forms the basis for the person's original arrest and continued detention, and
	(f) the gist of the material on which the suspicion is based.".
	(4) Before sub-sub-paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph 32(1) (grounds for extension) there is inserted—
	"(aa) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person has been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of a terrorist offence,".
	(5) Sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 33 (representation) is deleted and there is inserted in its place—
	"(1) The person to whom an application relates shall be entitled—
	(a) to appear in person before the judicial authority and make oral representations about the application,
	(b) to be legally represented by counsel at the hearing,
	(c) to legal aid for such representation,
	(d) to be represented by a special advocate at any closed part of the hearing of the application, and
	(e) through his representative, to cross examine the investigating officer.".
	(6) After sub-paragraph (3)(b) of paragraph 33 there is inserted—
	"if the judicial authority is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the exclusion of the person and/or his representative is necessary in order to avoid any of the harms set out in sub-paragraphs (1) to (g) of paragraph 34(2) below."'.
	New clause 2— Lower threshold for charging in terrorism cases—
	'(1) When deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to charge a person with an offence having a terrorist connection, a Crown Prosecutor may apply the "Threshold Test" for charging if the conditions in subsection (3) below are satisfied.
	(2) The "Threshold Test" for charging is met where there is at least a reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed an offence having a terrorist connection.
	(3) The conditions which must be satisfied for the Threshold Test to apply are—
	(a) it would not be appropriate to release the suspect on bail after charge;
	(b) the evidence required to demonstrate a realistic prospect of conviction is not yet available; and
	(c) it is reasonable to believe that such evidence will become available within a reasonable time.
	(4) The factors to be considered in deciding whether the Threshold Test of reasonable suspicion is met include—
	(a) the evidence available at the time;
	(b) the likelihood and nature of further evidence being obtained;
	(c) the reasonableness for believing that evidence will become available;
	(d) the time it will take to gather that evidence and the steps being taken to do so;
	(e) the impact the expected evidence will have on the case;
	(f) the charges that the evidence will support.
	(5) Where a Crown Prosecutor make a charging decision in accordance with the Threshold Test, the person charged shall be immediately informed of the fact that they have been charged on the standard of reasonable suspicion.
	(6) When the person charged on the Threshold Test is brought before the Court it shall be the duty of the Crown Prosecutor to inform the Court of that fact.
	(7) The Court shall set a timetable for the receipt of the additional evidence and for the application of the normal test for charging as set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
	(8) The Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service shall report annually on the operation of the Threshold Test in terrorism cases.'.
	New clause 3— Bail for terrorism offences—
	'(1) The Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, is amended as follows.
	(2) After paragraph 37 there is inserted—

"Part IV
	 — 
	Bail

38 The judicial authority with power to extend detention under section 41 has power to release the suspect on bail, with conditions."'.
	New clause 31— Compensation for detention—
	'(1) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of the date on which this Act is passed, make regulations providing for a compensation scheme ("the scheme") governing payments made to suspects who are detained under the provisions of Schedule [Amendments relating to period of pre-charge detention] and not charged with an offence.
	(2) The scheme shall specify levels of payments to be made to suspects so detained and different levels may be set for different periods of detention.
	(3) The Secretary of State may by order vary the levels of compensation set by the scheme.
	(4) Regulations and orders made under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.'.
	New clause 33— Expiry or renewal of extended maximum detention period: further parliamentary safeguards—
	'(1) The Terrorism Act 2006 is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (6) of section 25, there is inserted—
	"(6A) The Secretary of State and the panel appointed under section 36 must lay annual reports before Parliament on the operation of the extended period of pre-charge detention.
	(6B) No motion to approve a draft order under subsection (6) may be made by a Minister of the Crown until one month has elapsed since the publication of the reports laid under section (6A).".
	(3) In section 36—
	(a) in subsection (1) for "person" there is inserted "panel of persons";
	(b) in subsection (2)—
	(i) for "That person" there is inserted "The panel";
	(ii) for "he" there is inserted "it"; and
	(iii) for "his" there is inserted "its";
	(c) in subsection (3)—
	(i) for "That person" there is inserted "The panel"; and
	(ii) for "his" there is inserted "its";
	(d) in subsection (4), for "That person" there is inserted "The panel";
	(e) in subsection (6)—
	(i) for "a person" there is inserted "the persons"; and
	(ii) for "his" there is inserted "their".
	(4) In section 36, after subsection (1) there is inserted—
	"(1A) A person may not be appointed under subsection (1) unless—
	(a) the Secretary of State lays a report on the appointment process before both Houses of Parliament, and
	(b) a Minister of the Crown makes a motion in both Houses to approve the report laid under this subsection.".'.
	New clause 36— Power to declare reserve power exercisable (No. 2)—
	'An order made by the Secretary of State under section [ Power to declare reserve power exercisable] shall be treated for the purposes of the Human Rights Act as subordinate legislation and not primary legislation.'.
	New clause 37— Power to declare reserve power exercisable (No. 3)—
	'The grounds on which an order made by the Secretary of State under section [ Power to declare reserve power exercisable] shall be subject to judicial review shall include—
	(a) that a grave exceptional terrorist threat has not occurred or is not occurring;
	(b) that the reserve power is not needed for the purpose of investigating the threat and bringing to justice those responsible; and
	(c) that the need for the power is not urgent.'.
	New clause 38— Amendment to section 25 of the Terrorism Act 2006—
	'(1) Section 25 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (c. 11) (expiry or renewal of extended maximum detention period) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (3), insert—
	"(3A) (a) The Secretary of State may only make an order under subsection (3) if she is reasonably satisfied that making the order is necessary for the effective investigation of terrorist offences.
	(b) In determining what is necessary for the effective investigation of terrorist offences the Secretary of State must take into account the availability of post-charge questioning, the practice of the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to the weight of evidence required to bring charges and any changes to the relevant law of evidence or procedure since this Act came into force."'.
	New clause 39— Habeas Corpus (No. 2)—
	'(1) Nothing in this Act shall prevent or restrict a person who is detained under this Act or a person duly authorised on behalf of that person from making an application to a Justice of the High Court for habeas corpus.
	(2) It shall be a condition of the detention that the person detained shall be produced forthwith to a Justice of the High Court or to a senior immigration judge authorised to sit as a member of the Special Immigration Appeal Commission who shall enquire as to—
	(a) the circumstances of the detention;
	(b) the enquiries that are being made;
	(c) the likelihood of the detained person being charged within 42 days of any offence of terrorism or related serious indictable offence.
	(3) If the Justice of the High Court or senior immigration judge is not satisfied as to the likelihood of the person detained being charged within 42 days that person shall be released forthwith from detention subject to any conditions the judge may impose.'.
	Government amendment No. 4
	Government new schedule 1— 'Amendments relating to period of pre-charge detention
	Government amendment No. 5
	Amendment No. 98, in schedule 2, in page 64, line 25, at end insert—
	'(2) "emergency" means a public emergency in respect of which there is a designated derogation from the whole or a part of Article 5 of the Human Rights Convention.'.
	Amendment No. 99, page 64, line 26, leave out paragraph 39.
	Amendment No. 100, in page 65, line 29, at end insert
	'if the following conditions are satisfied—
	(a) there is an emergency;
	(b) making the derogating power available is strictly required by the emergency; and
	(c) the availability of the derogating power is consistent with the UK's other international obligations.'.
	Amendment No. 101, page 66, line 6, leave out sub-sub-paragraph (b).
	Amendment No. 102, page 66, line 8, leave out 'that the Secretary of State is' and insert
	'the Secretary of State's reasons for being'.
	Amendment No. 103, page 66, leave out lines 9 to 15 and insert—
	'(a) that there is an emergency;
	(b) that making the derogating power available is strictly required by the emergency; and
	(c) that the availability of the derogating power is consistent with the UK's other international obligations.'.
	Amendment No. 104, page 69, line 6, leave out '30' and insert 'seven'.
	Amendment No. 105, page 69, line 9, leave out '30' and insert 'seven'.

Jacqui Smith: New clauses 20 to 22, 24 to 30 and 32, and new schedule 1, introduce amendments to strengthen considerably the safeguards that we want to apply to any future use of the provision in this Bill for a reserve power to extend the period for which terrorist suspects could be held before charge. The Government believe that such a reserve power should be available, for use if necessary, to protect our national security and, most importantly, our people against the threat that we face from terrorism.
	That threat is real and serious. First, the threat is unprecedented in scale. Some 65 terrorists have been convicted in our courts since the start of 2007, and there are more than 200 groupings and 200 individuals of concern to agencies in the UK today. Secondly, the threat is more ruthless than any we have faced before. It aims for mass casualties, uses suicide methods, and would use dirty bombs given half a chance.

Philip Davies: Nobody underestimates the threat that we face, but if the Government are so determined to clamp down on the threat from terrorism, why does not the Home Secretary, as a first step, scrap the Human Rights Act 1998, which has done so much to stop undesirable people who may pose a serious threat being kicked out of the country? If she is so serious about this, she should scrap that Act.

Jacqui Smith: As I will demonstrate today, I believe that it is possible to find a way both to safeguard our individual civil liberties and rights and to protect the people of this country—and that is what we are setting out to do.
	Thirdly, the threat is more complex and international than ever before. Terrorists living and working in our society have learned how to use technology to cover their tracks. They travel a network, sharing experiences and learning from mistakes. Terrorist plots in this country now almost invariably involve multiple connections to many countries overseas. That alone creates huge technological and logistical challenges for investigators.

Elfyn Llwyd: On the issue of 42 days, can the Home Secretary explain why she said a few weeks ago on Radio 4 that she had no idea how many days would be required?

Jacqui Smith: Our starting point has always been not the maximum number of days for which it should be possible to hold somebody, but whether there was a case for more than 28 days at all, and what safeguards should apply. I have been very clear from the outset that there had to be—

Several hon. Members: rose —

Jacqui Smith: Just a minute. I am responding to the intervention by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). There will be plenty of time for other interventions.
	I have been clear from the outset that there had to be an upper limit so that no individual could be detained indefinitely. The figure of 42 has been arrived at by assessing with the police and others the minimal additional period that, in our judgment, would make a significant difference in the sort of circumstances in which an extension would even be considered.

Keith Vaz: On the issue of the threat, would my right hon. Friend like to comment on the statement made this morning by Lord Stevens about the state of the threat? Will she also confirm that she or her Ministers have discussed the proposals fully with the Director of Public Prosecutions?

Jacqui Smith: The important point that Lord Stevens made this morning is the point that I was about to make about the threat. Given the ferocity of what is planned and the use of suicide methods, the police may well need to step in early to prevent a plot from coming to fruition. It is that combination of factors that means that police may need longer to get to the bottom of who and what is involved and then build a case on the basis of evidence that is admissible in court.
	We have discussed this with the DPP and he has given evidence to the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and the Public Bill Committee.
	The nature of the threat and the need to intervene early have meant that the police have had to hold a small number of suspects for the full 28 days since the higher limit was introduced in July 2006. It is this that leads our most senior police officers to say, as Lord Stevens and others have, that they can foresee circumstances when it may be necessary—in order fully to investigate and charge—to hold terrorist suspects for more than 28 days.

Dominic Grieve: The Home Secretary is aware that the current system for charging places the responsibility for making that decision firmly in the hands of the Crown Prosecution Service. It is on the CPS that the responsibility falls. If the facts given by the Home Secretary mean that police fears are justified, why have the police been unable to persuade the CPS that there is any necessity for the extension? The CPS has to make those decisions, and will continue to have to make them.

Jacqui Smith: It is the responsibility of this House and the Government to make a judgment and to bring forward laws that will then be implemented. If the hon. and learned Gentleman were ever in government, I would be very surprised if he then wanted to take a different approach.
	I have described the risk. We cannot wish that risk away, and we should not try to.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Jacqui Smith: I shall give way in a moment. The risk has been identified, and it is for us as law-makers to take the necessary precautions to respond to and cover the risk.

John Baron: On the issue of complexity, the Madrid bombings involved 29 suspects, investigations spanning seven countries, 300 witnesses and tons of evidence in electronic and paper form. Why did the Spanish authorities need only five days to bring charges, when the Home Secretary is arguing for 42?

Jacqui Smith: As many people have made clear during the course of the debate, there are fundamentally different systems in different countries with different thresholds for charging. In Spain, 14 people were arrested in January this year. It was only last week that they reached the stage equivalent to our charging, which means that a form of preventive detention was used that lasted 138 days. There are very different systems in different countries.
	There are those who say that the advice of the police is not enough. I agree. Their voice is important, but it is not the only one. Striking the right balance between civil liberties and the rights of all our citizens to live free from terrorist attack evokes strong views. It is important to us all. That is why it has been important to me to consult closely.

Oliver Heald: If the Home Secretary wants to use this power only in grave and exceptional terrorist cases, why is she not prepared to do so under emergency powers? Is it because she does not want the safeguards in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004? That is what lawyers think. It is also what David Pannick thinks, and it is what I think. Is that not the truth?

Jacqui Smith: Although I have great respect for what the hon. Gentleman says and thinks, let us make it quite clear that the Civil Contingencies Act— [ Interruption. ] No, I am afraid that it is not right. The Civil Contingencies Act would not contain any of the individual safeguards with regard to the review of extended detention by a judge that our proposals include, so it would be more draconian than our proposals.

William Cash: The Home Secretary might have noticed that I have tabled a new clause relating to habeas corpus. Does she accept that habeas corpus depends on whether a person is being lawfully detained? If a person was being lawfully detained under the provisions of the Bill, habeas corpus would not apply. Does she accept the proposals in principle that lie behind my new clause, which would ensure that habeas corpus was available and that the judge would decide the question of whether a person should be detained?

Jacqui Smith: I agree with the principle argued by the hon. Gentleman. It is the principle behind habeas corpus, which is that the court must determine whether it has the power to detain a person. That is already enshrined in schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000, which is the basis of our proposals in our provisions. A detainee will need to be brought before the court after 48 hours of detention and then at least every seven days after that. He or she therefore cannot be detained beyond 48 hours other than on the authorisation of a judge. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the principle of habeas corpus, which is enshrined in the principles of the proposals that we are putting forward.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Jacqui Smith: I am going to make a little progress now. As I said, it has been important for me to consult closely with colleagues from all parties, with the Muslim community and with organisations such as Liberty, and to design proposals to get that balance right.

Mohammad Sarwar: I want to thank the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the various meetings we have held to address the concerns about the impact that counter-terrorism legislation has on law-abiding British Muslim communities. What safeguards can my right hon. Friend guarantee to ensure that individuals who are arrested and detained for more than 28 days are fully compensated for the immense damage done to them and to their families and communities?

Jacqui Smith: I am glad that my hon. Friend has been willing to engage in such a constructive way in ensuring that we deliver provisions that safeguard all our people regardless of their background. He identifies the wholly exceptional nature of holding anybody in detention beyond 28 days and for up to 42 days. I know that he, like others in the community, has expressed concern about those who have subsequently been released without being charged, and because of the representations that he has made, I have asked my officials to develop an ex gratia scheme that, because of the exceptional circumstances, would be available to compensate those who had been detained and then released without charge, or who had faced any other executive action. I hope that that offers my hon. Friend some reassurance, both about the exceptional nature of our proposals and about the fact that they are designed to protect all our communities, regardless of their background.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Jacqui Smith: I shall make a bit of progress.
	This is a good example of the consultation and the work that we have been willing to undertake to design the proposals so that we get the balance right. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing and I have been doing that for the best part of a year. In fact, my right hon. Friend has been doing it for longer. Anybody who compares our initial proposals from last July with what we are proposing now will see how far we have moved. We are not proposing a permanent, automatic or immediate extension to pre-charge detention beyond 28 days. Instead, the Bill contains a reserve power that could be used only in exceptional circumstances, only with the support of the DPP, only with the backing of Parliament in a vote in both Houses, and only with strong judicial safeguards, and for a temporary period before it automatically lapsed.

Angus MacNeil: I am listening to what the Home Secretary is saying, but is this not essentially hollow macho legislation that is not so much about keeping terrorists in detention for 42 days but about keeping the Prime Minister in Downing street for two years? If he falls on this tonight, he will be out of Downing street within 42 days.

Jacqui Smith: If people compare that intervention with the approach that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have taken, they will understand where the charge of being hollow and macho should lie.
	We have also made it clear that decisions about the detention of individuals will, as I have explained to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), be made by a judge. They will involve a full adversarial hearing with the suspect represented, and each extension will be for a maximum of only seven days.

Eleanor Laing: On the narrow point about the damage that the Home Secretary is likely to do to the constitutional settlement by giving this House and Parliament an effectively quasi-judicial role, which is what she has just outlined, the doctrine of the separation of powers is a delicate balance, which keeps our constitution effective. She is damaging that balance with the proposals that she is making today.

Jacqui Smith: It is wholly appropriate for Parliament to be given the function of approving an order that commences a piece of primary legislation, and wholly appropriate for the courts to assess on a case-by-case basis, as they will do, whether the police and the CPS need more time to collect and examine evidence, so that once that order is commenced, any given individual can be detained for a longer period. That is a completely appropriate use of the parliamentary role, which is separate from the judicial role in overseeing individuals' detention.

Dominic Grieve: I listened very carefully to the Prime Minister's answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) at Prime Minister's questions. The Prime Minister told him that Parliament would debate whether there was a grave and exceptional terrorist threat. I have to say to the Home Secretary that that is not what is said in her amendments. Parliament will be asked to approve an order stating that there is an
	"operational need for further extension of"
	the
	"maximum period of detention".
	As the request for the operational need will arise from particular cases, how can that approval be given without the House debating and having information about those specific cases? I am afraid that the Prime Minister is misleading the House on the matter. He may be doing so inadvertently, but that is what he has been—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows what he must do: he must withdraw that remark.

Dominic Grieve: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I qualified it; the misleading must have been inadvertent.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman should withdraw the remark.

Dominic Grieve: I withdraw the remark.

Jacqui Smith: I think that I made clear what the wholly different functions of Parliament and the judiciary were in the process.

Nick Palmer: Many of us recognise that in the national interest, in extreme circumstances, a conspiracy may take longer to unravel. We are not tempted to support unprincipled opportunism on this issue.  [Interruption.] It is no good shouting at me; it is like shouting at the reflection in the mirror. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar), I am concerned that if suspects are detained for six weeks, they may have to give up a considerable part of their private lives, and there may be a considerable risk to their jobs and mortgages. Will the Home Secretary confirm that we will give them adequate compensation if they are found to be innocent?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend has raised the point with me before, and I hope that he is reassured by the commitment that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) about the work now under way to look at taking a wholly exceptional ex gratia approach to compensating those released after 28 days who are subsequently not charged.
	In considering the provisions, some have said, "Show me the evidence now that we need 42 days." I have published evidence of the growing scale and complexity of plots. Frankly, the only other evidence that it would be possible to provide would be provided on the day when a terror suspect walks free because an investigation cannot be completed. I am not willing to wait until then to legislate.

Tony Lloyd: I very much understand the point that my right hon. Friend makes about the evidence that she can give for the need for a period of more than 28 days. It is a matter of practical fact that in one case it took my local police force 27 days, 20 hours and 40 minutes to charge someone. The chief constable is both honest and experienced in terrorism. I asked him whether that period was needed. He said that it was, and what is more, he believes that the time is close when he will need more than 28 days.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, identifying the challenge facing those whom we task with investigating some of the most serious offences in this country. It is to respond to that that we have brought forward our proposals.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: The first of the vaunted safeguards is that the power would be used when there was a grave and exceptional terrorist threat. That is defined as circumstances in which there is
	"loss of human life...illness or injury...homelessness...damage to property...disruption of a supply of money, food, water, energy...communication... transport, or...health."
	Can the Home Secretary give us an example of something that is not a grave and exceptional terrorist threat?

Jacqui Smith: I am rather disappointed that my hon. and learned Friend has not read the new clause in sufficient detail. The last part of the list that he read out is a qualification of the second part of the first definition. I would have thought that with his legal background, he would have been more careful in reading the new clause.

Sammy Wilson: Speaking as someone who comes from a part of the United Kingdom that has suffered very badly from terrorism over the past 30 years, I think that the members of our party take very seriously any threat to national security, and any actions that may give publicity to terrorists. On the power that the Home Secretary is seeking today, if the matter is to be debated in the House every time there is a severe threat, will it not give terrorists an opportunity to get the oxygen of publicity that she so much wants to deny them?

Jacqui Smith: We would bring forward the order that requires a parliamentary debate at times—I believe that they would be wholly exceptional times—when there was a grave and exceptional terrorist threat and it had become clear to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the chief constable that the barrier of 28 days was likely to be met before they finished an investigation. As I have said on many occasions, I believe that that would be wholly exceptional, but when we need the power, it will be extremely important that it is in place.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Jacqui Smith: I will make a little progress, and then I will give way again.
	We have listened to those who say that until now there has been no need to extend the period beyond 28 days. That is why the legislation ensures that there can be no extension of pre-charge detention until and unless the evidence supports it—until there is a "grave exceptional terrorist threat" that might require a longer investigation time.

Bernard Jenkin: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Jacqui Smith: No. Some have said that we should use the Civil Contingencies Act if we want to detain suspects beyond the current limit. We do not believe that the Civil Contingencies Act, which is designed to deal with events such as floods and pandemics, could legally be used for the purposes of criminal detention, and we certainly need to ask whether the use of that legislation, which would effectively mean the declaration of an emergency, would give a propaganda victory to terrorists; that is the point that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made. Incidentally, the use of that Act would also mean that people could be held in detention not for up to 42 days, but potentially for up to 58 days. That is the basis of my contention that that would be a more draconian approach to dealing with the challenge than the approach that the Government have taken.

David Winnick: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way; she has been very generous. Will she bear in mind the fact that when the Director of Public Prosecutions gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee he made the point that if someone was held for 24 or 25 days without at least being charged on reasonable suspicion, it would make the prosecution unsuccessful in many instances? Is that not a factor in deciding whether to go beyond the 28 days? I must say that I am by no means persuaded that there is any justification for what is being proposed.

Jacqui Smith: Of course, because the prosecutors and the police would have such a significant role in determining whether a further investigation would enable someone to be brought to charge, it is their responsibility to provide the Home Secretary with a report, so that consideration can be given to whether to bring in the order.
	To return to the Civil Contingencies Act, although we do not think that it is the right vehicle on its own, there are aspects of the approach taken in the Act that we have been able to adapt in the Bill's proposals, such as the need to define the nature of the exceptional circumstances in which the reserve power could be used, and the need to gain parliamentary approval for the use of the powers.

Gordon Marsden: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. As she knows, this is an issue on which I have had some concerns. Will she spell out some more examples of how the proposal might work in practice, accepting that there will never be an absolute case that can be advanced? Will she particularly touch on the extent to which the involvement of the United Kingdom in events that take place outside the United Kingdom is germane to the argument that she is putting to the House?

Jacqui Smith: I am coming to the detail about the amendments, to show that we have been willing to go further to provide the reassurance that colleagues in all parts of the House have sought. In response to my hon. Friend, first, we are clearer in the Bill about the trigger for any use of the power. The power could be brought into force only where it is needed for investigating serious terrorist offences arising out of a grave and exceptional terrorist threat. People have asked what that means. We know that people have plotted to devastate our transport system, to blow up Bluewater shopping centre and, as I said, to use a dirty bomb. We have also seen plots to ensure multiple atrocities. We have seen plots on an international scale that would have brought death on a considerable scale to British people.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Dominic Grieve: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. and learned Gentleman is on the Front Bench. He has had plenty of time in the Chamber and in Committee to take up these points.
	In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), that is the order of threat that the provision is aimed to deal with—an event or situation involving terrorism that causes or threatens serious loss of human life, serious damage to human welfare or serious damage to the security of the UK. That set of circumstances is a higher test than originally proposed and is similar to the test in the Civil Contingencies Act.

David Davis: If the Home Secretary is so confident that that is a higher test, why have she and the Prime Minister explicitly avoided allowing judicial review of her decision?

Jacqui Smith: It will be possible judicially to review the Home Secretary's decision on the basis of reasonableness. I have always been clear about that.
	A further safeguard is that the use of the power would be limited to investigations involving only the most serious offences—for example, murder, conspiracy to cause explosions, acts preparatory—that is, those carrying a life penalty.

David Davis: In the Prime Minister's letter to Back Benchers, he said that the Government do not see judicial review as the way forward. What did he mean by that?

Jacqui Smith: The right hon. Gentleman knows that he has made the case to me for the widening of the scope of judicial review. In our view there is an important role for Parliament to play in the process. There is an important role for the judiciary to play in determining the reasonableness of the Home Secretary's decision, and the individual decisions about an extension of pre-charge detention in any given case. I believe that that is an appropriate use of judicial oversight and review and parliamentary decision making.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Hon. Members: Give way!

Jacqui Smith: No, I will not.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary is here to put her case to the House. All the interruptions are causing other hon. Members not to be able to hear the case that is being put. That is unfair in many ways. I ask hon. Members to try to use some measure when they ask to intervene. Some of us know that that is a way of allowing hon. Members to put their own case on the record. They should be careful about that.

Jacqui Smith: Secondly, our amendments will strengthen the role of Parliament, bringing forward the vote on the Home Secretary's making of the order from 30 days to seven days. On making the order, the Chairs of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights will be informed of the decision, and we will seek and publish legal advice for Parliament.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. She is being extremely generous. Perhaps it would help the House if she explained whether she envisages that the circumstances of intelligence revealing that there was a specific and serious threat—for instance, against the people working in the City of London or in other areas of London—would operate the trigger that she referred to. About 8,000 of my constituents work on the front line of the world terrorist threat in London. Anything she can do to improve protection of them will be much welcomed by the country.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman well understands the nature of the threat that we face. It aims to cause mass casualties among the sort of people that he describes. That is the type of serious terrorist threat that we are seeking to tackle. He is right to remind us whom we are trying to protect.
	Thirdly, our amendments reinforce the temporary nature of the power, reducing the length of time that it can be in force from 60 days to 30 days, with no renewal at the end of that period. In addition to that, there are other safeguards. Individual detention beyond 28 days would, as under present proposals, be considered by a judge. Any application for an extension beyond 28 days would require the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The judge may issue a warrant of further detention only if he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that further detention is necessary for the investigation of a serious terrorist offence.
	The independent reviewer will report within six months of the reserve power ceasing to be available. A parliamentary debate will take place on that report, which will cover whether, looking back, individual suspects were held in accordance with requirements governing detention, whether proper procedures were followed for applications for detention beyond 28 days, and whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances for the Home Secretary to make the order.

Martin Salter: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, for the way in which she has conducted the debate through both the Home Affairs Committee and the Public Bill Committee, and particularly for the safeguards that have been put in place. Does she agree that it would have been preferable, when we had the debate on 90 days, to have gone through a similar process and for the safeguards to have been written in at that time? Would that not have saved the Government some embarrassment? Is there now no excuse for colleagues who voted for 90 days to have serious reservations about what is proposed today?

Jacqui Smith: I believe that the threat now is greater and the safeguards are more real. I therefore hope that we can achieve the support of the House for our proposals.

Richard Ottaway: The Home Secretary will have heard the Prime Minister saying no fewer than four times during Prime Minister's questions that he was relying on advice from the security services. She will also be aware that the website of the security services said that the security services were neutral. Something has clearly changed since that statement was made. Will she publish the security services' advice on the matter?

Jacqui Smith: As I spelled out when I was speaking about the nature of the threat, one of the arguments for what we are proposing is the growing scale of the threat that we face. It was the director general of the Security Service at the end of last year who identified the concerns about 2,000 individuals, 200 networks and 30 plots in this country. It is his description of the scale of the threat that has led us to consider what sort of response we need to make.

Simon Hughes: Clearly, the Government have rowed back from their original 90 days, but there has always been the qualification that it is possible to restrict the liberties protected by the convention—the words are there—when something amounts to a public emergency threatening the life of the nation, so why does not the Home Secretary rely on that, like all other countries do? Why have we seen every few years under this Government an increase in the powers of the state over the citizen, when no other comparable country equally threatened has thought it necessary to move in the same direction?

Jacqui Smith: I am not completely clear what the hon. Gentleman is arguing, but I have spelled out the nature of the threat that we face, the requirement on us to take that threat seriously and the proportionate way in which we are addressing that. That is the basis of what we originally proposed in the Bill and it is strengthened by the amendments that I am putting forward today.

Karen Buck: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to argue that the Civil Contingencies Act and the invocation of a state of emergency would be wholly the wrong approach and would give the oxygen of publicity to terrorists, but I, and I am sure others, remain deeply unconvinced that the proposed definition would not effectively catch almost all forms of terrorist activity, and would therefore not constitute an exceptional circumstance that generates the need for exceptional powers.

Jacqui Smith: That is why the definition that we have set down requires serious loss of life or serious impact on human welfare, and it is that arm of the definition that is qualified by the list beneath it or serious threat to national security. I am willing to discuss this at further length with my hon. Friend and others, and I have no doubt that it will be scrutinised in detail when the Bill arrives in the House of Lords, but our intention in proposing the definition was precisely to limit the circumstances in which it will be possible to use the power. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that that was the intention. It was also the reason why, in a spirit of developing consensus, we looked extremely closely at the wording in the Civil Contingencies Act, and built our definition on that. It is stronger than what we originally proposed, and I believe that it will tightly define the circumstances in which the power can be used. Of course that will quite rightly be subject to further scrutiny, not only today but when the Bill reaches the House of Lords.

Mark Durkan: Earlier today the Prime Minister told us that, under the Bill, the Home Secretary would make a statement in the House showing that there was a grave exceptional threat. In fact, the Home Secretary will have to make a statement saying only that there is a grave exceptional threat. Those words are not a requirement for the triggering of the power; they are simply a requirement of parliamentary liturgy that we will have to go through.

Jacqui Smith: It is the role of the Home Secretary to make the order, but it is an important parliamentary safeguard that the making of the order has to be approved by Parliament. As I have said previously, Parliament's role in approving the order is not a negligible or an insignificant safeguard. I am constantly surprised at parliamentary colleagues who believe that their role is so insignificant in the thinking of a Home Secretary. Trust me—Home Secretaries think very carefully about what they have to explain to Parliament and what they need to have approved by Parliament.

Mark Harper: I want to take the Home Secretary back to the exchange that we had during Home Office questions on Monday, when I challenged her on her admission in her conversation with Andrew Marr during his programme on Sunday that the security services were not pressing for this extension. She said that I was "plain wrong". I looked at the transcript, and that is exactly what she said. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) made clear, the director general of the Security Service made it clear that it is neutral on this matter; it is not pressing for it. So for the Prime Minister and for her to say that they are following the advice of the security services in bringing this forward is just plain wrong.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman is just plain wrong again. I have been very clear in my response as to what the director general of the Security Service has said on the record about the scale of the threat that we face. It is the scale of the threat that we face that is at the heart of the proposals that we are bringing forward and the way in which we seek to address them. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make debating points about the scale of the threat, that is up to him, but I believe that this is a serious threat that we need to address.
	Terrorism is an assault on our civil liberties, on our democracy and on our values. Our response to terrorism must continue to be based on those values and liberties, ardently pursued through our democratic framework, primarily through our criminal justice system. But we cannot allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security that might lead us to put at risk the liberty of all in Britain to live lives free from the threat of terrorist outrage and atrocity. In opposing terrorism, we must not lose sight of our values. For me, getting the balance right between individual freedom and collective security must always be at the heart of what we do. Our response must reinforce our shared values, not weaken them, because it is on those values that our security ultimately depends.
	We have approached the Bill to build a consensus on how we can protect those values at the same time as protecting our national security. We have talked, we have listened, we have moved. Other than in circumstances involving a grave exceptional threat, the pre-charge detention limit for terrorist suspects will remain exactly as it is now. Indeed, that limit continues to be subject to annual renewal by Parliament.
	I hope that we never need to extend the period, but the question that hon. Members need to ask themselves is whether they are confident that we will never need 29, 30 or 31 days to bring a terrorist suspect to charge, to put them in front of a court. The proposals that we will vote on today are better, fairer and more proportionate as a result of the process of parliamentary scrutiny and debate that they have undergone, but the time has come for hon. Members to decide. It is the job of Government, police and prosecutors to protect the public from terrorist attack, and thereby to defend everybody's right to life, but today it is the job of Parliament to give them the tools to do that. We need the support of the House for the proposals in the Bill. We need the support of the House to do the right thing for this country's security, and I commend the amendments to the House.

David Davis: "It is the job of Parliament to give them the tools"? It is the job of Parliament to defend the liberties that we have had for centuries.
	I rise to oppose the Government's new clauses and to support amendments Nos. 4 and 5 to remove 42 days from the Bill. Today, there are essentially two arguments to deal with. The first is: have the Government made their case for 42 days? If not, this change should be rejected out of hand, because in this country we do not give away freedom without good cause. Secondly, if they have made their case, are the powers proportionate and are the checks and balances to prevent improper use of the powers adequate?
	The issue of how long we incarcerate those on whom we have insufficient evidence to charge with any crime has become one of the defining debates of the last decade in this country. Notably, this week marks the anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta. For almost 800 years, we have built on the right of habeas corpus, founded in that ancient document: the fundamental freedom from arbitrary detention by the state. The liberty of the person is in our blood, part of our history, part of our way of life; Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Democratic Unionists—all parties. Liberty is the common strand that binds us together, and we have shed blood to protect it, both abroad and at home.
	Today the Government ask us to sacrifice some of that liberty. The Home Secretary offers a Faustian bargain: to trade a fundamental liberty for a little extra security. Yet, as the debate has gone on, the case for 42 days has first crumbled and then collapsed. So, after months of debate, what are the basic facts? The right hon. Lady said in her speech that the Home Secretary properly takes advice from the police but that that is not enough and we need to examine the evidence that they present. I think that that is what she said, so let us do so: let us look at the evidence that was presented by the Home Secretary's own witnesses.
	Let us start with Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. In his evidence to Parliament, the commissioner said explicitly:
	"We have never put forward a case that there is evidence of a need for an extension". ——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 11, Q3.]
	He based his support for 42 days on "a pragmatic inference" based on trends in a number of plots and on those plots' complexity. In support of that, he and his counter-terrorism chief initially claimed that 15 terrorist plots had been thwarted since the 7/7 bombings. It was on that basis that he presented his evidence to the Bill Committee. But then it transpired that there had been a mistake. The corrected evidence revealed the true picture, which is that between 2003 and 2005, there were nine plots, three a year, and there have been four since the beginning of 2006, two a year. So, the number of plots, far from increasing, has actually decreased over the past three years. That is a good thing, but it is not an argument for extra powers, and although we should not underestimate the threat, we should not overstate it either.
	The second witness who the Home Secretary brought before us was Mr. Peter Clarke. He argued exactly what was argued in the debate about 90 days, and he told us how complex and technical anti-terror cases were becoming. His example of a technically challenging case was that of Dhiren Barot. There is no doubt that it was a technically challenging case, but it was a case in which charges were successfully brought within 14 days—not 28 days, but 14—which is hardly evidence that we need three times as long. Mr. Clarke offered the observation that in the Barot case, police officers had occasion to sleep at the office. Frankly, I should prefer that police officers sleep at the office for two weeks than risk putting innocent people in a cell for six weeks.

Nick Palmer: Is the shadow Home Secretary saying that he rules out the possibility that at some point there will be cases that are sufficiently complex to take more than 28 days to unravel? If he does not rule that out, what would he as Home Secretary do about them?

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman has heard me any number of times say that we will listen to the evidence. As I develop my case, he will hear that finding the evidence in the first place was difficult. Indeed, it was made more difficult by the Government, and that evidence does not support what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Tony Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: In a moment. I want to get to the end of this part of my argument, because it is very important to this particular point.
	The third witness was Ken Jones, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, who said that the police, operating under the current 28-day limit were "up against the buffers". That is the claim being made: not that we might be, but that we are up against the buffers. He based his judgment on the most complex counter-terrorism investigation in our history, Operation Overt, in respect of the alleged plot to blow 10 airliners out of the sky at Heathrow in August 2006. In that case, five people were held for 27 or 28 days. One can see why that superficial analysis leads us to the idea that we are up against the buffers, but it is only a superficial analysis. I asked Mr. Jones yesterday whether he had examined the detailed evidence in Operation Overt. He told me that he had not had the opportunity. I did look at the evidence. Three of the five suspects were held for the maximum period. More than half were innocent.

Frank Field: No, they were found not guilty.

David Davis: Innocent. That demonstrates— [Interruption.] We can reiterate the argument that we had last time. The last time I used "innocent", Labour Members exploded in uproar at the idea that those people might be innocent, so I told Labour Members that I had asked the police at the time whether they were concerned sufficiently to put those three people under control orders. "No," they said. I asked whether they were sufficiently concerned to put them under overt or covert surveillance? "No," they said. I asked whether they were carrying on any further investigations into them? "No," they said. I give way to the ex-Home Secretary.

David Blunkett: The right hon. Gentleman's latter point is very important, because in some of the cases that he cites, a lesser charge could have been offered. From all parts of the House, a case has been put that in respect of post-charge questioning, there is an opportunity for the police to continue doing what today's proposal of a 14-day extension allows in the most serious cases and for the most serious charge. Is it not either muddled thinking or, at its very best, a paradox, that those who are against the extension—with all the safeguards—to 42 days are happy for people to be charged with a lesser offence and then to be held in prison while questioning continues?

David Davis: The point that the right hon. Gentleman conflates—he has heard me argue this—is that the inability to question post-charge forces police and, more importantly, the Crown Prosecution Service, to defer charging because they are unable to continue gathering information about the case from the individual once the charge has been made. That is not the same point as the point that he makes. It is a very important point, but it is not the one that he made.

Chris Bryant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to go through this point. It is quite important. I always give Members an opportunity to intervene later in my speeches.  [Interruption.] I shall, however, give way to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), if he wants.

Vernon Coaker: indicated dissent.

David Davis: No, obviously not.
	Three of the five suspects—more than half—were held for the maximum period and they were innocent. That demonstrates not a virtue but a serious danger with further extension, namely that the longer one holds people without charge, the more likely they are to turn out to be innocent. Incidentally, of the six cases that John Stevens cited as taking us to the brink—they are, I think, the words that he used—half were proved innocent. There is a danger intrinsic in the extension when it involves cases in which there is no apparent evidence or not sufficient evidence in that there is more of a risk of detaining people who are innocent than of detaining those who are guilty.

Several hon. Members: rose —

David Davis: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)

Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a certain irony in the right hon. Lady the Home Secretary citing the Madrid bombing as one of the most extreme examples of complexity, when her Government have welcomed two former Guantanamo bay suspects, who are not British citizens, back to Britain despite the fact that the Spanish police are desperate to get hold of them?

David Davis: My hon. Friend makes his point, but it would take me rather offline to follow him down that route.
	Let me return to the point about innocence, because Ministers now intimate—if they do not say so outright—that they will pay compensation in cases where innocent people are detained for longer than 28 days. Could we ever have a more explicit admission of the inevitable failure of the law or of the foreseeable injustices that it will bring? It is for this House to search its conscience—to determine whether putting in place a system of six weeks' detention, when on current experience half or more cases are likely to be proved innocent, will serve the vital interests either of our national security or, very importantly, of British justice.

Julian Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Davis: No. I have a small but important point to get through, and then I shall take some interventions.
	What about the other two cases in which people were held for 28 days? They are implicitly held up as the illustration that, due to the complexity of investigations, 28 days is proving inadequate. Is that really what those cases show? The key question is, when was the evidence available on which the charges were based? Ministers and officials have been asked a number of times—the Home Secretary has been asked a number of times—to answer that question, and they have implied that the evidence was obtained very late in the 28-day period.
	During our numerous meetings, when we were trying to reach a consensus, I asked the Home Secretary three times to show me the facts that demonstrated that evidence gathering had delayed the decision to charge in Operation Overt. But she failed to explain—even in the most general terms, or on a Privy Council basis, which I would have been perfectly happy to accept—what the evidence was or when it was acquired. I was forced to establish the facts myself and then to check them with the investigating team at Scotland Yard. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), the shadow Attorney-General, checked them with the Crown Prosecution Service. The facts are as follows: in neither of the two cases was the evidential basis of the charge encrypted data, evidence requiring complex forensic analysis or intelligence from overseas. In one case, it comprised telephone records, handwritten and printed literature, an unencrypted CD and a receipt, all of which were available within four days of arrest. The second case was based on witness statements, mobile phone text messages and a single unencrypted computer file, all of which were available within 12 days of arrest.
	That does not mean that the police should be criticised—far from it. They should be commended for their handling of that operation, as I have said on several occasions. Nor does it mean that the CPS acted improperly—it rightly looked to gather as much evidence as possible under the rules that it is given by this House within the time frame that Parliament sets it. However, it does show that in the most complex terrorism investigation in our history, all the evidence on the only two suspects charged after 21 days was in the possession of the police within four and 12 days respectively. I suspect that that is why the Director of Public Prosecutions does not believe that the extension is at all necessary or foresee circumstances in which it will be necessary in future.

Chris Bryant: The right hon. Gentleman is basing his whole argument on his assertion that there is no evidence that proves that these powers are necessary. Surely the only evidence that there could possibly be would be a catastrophic failure of the criminal justice system that meant that the police were unable to charge somebody before the end of the 28 days and that person then going on to commit a major atrocity. That is precisely what we are all trying to avoid.  [ Interruption. ]

David Davis: Hon. Members should not heckle the hon. Gentleman—he is well intentioned in this matter. I would say two things to him. First, he is making a case for indefinite detention. Secondly, this is why we asked the Government to consider using the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. The Home Secretary says that it is not capable of being used, although David Pannick, the Government's counsel of choice—the man who wrote the textbook on these subjects—says that it is. I offered the Home Secretary sufficient changes to make it usable in such circumstances, because it contains some protections that are worth having but are not available in the Bill. That was the "CCA plus" offer that people have read about in the papers. We did that on the basis of the argument made by the Home Secretary's predecessor.

Julian Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Davis: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I have not finished my answer.

Martin Salter: rose—

Rob Marris: rose—

David Davis: I will not give way for the moment—forgive me.
	The Home Secretary reminds us time and again that she is, in her words, "responsible" for national security. She is right to stress that. A Home Secretary must take advice from all members of the law enforcement agencies, but she must check and ask questions; she must establish the facts, as we have been doing this afternoon. That is her responsibility. As the evidence in favour of extending pre-charge detention has evaporated under scrutiny, it has been replaced with growing evidence that the pre-charge detention proposals risk making us less, not more safe. The former chief inspector of constabulary has described the proposal on 42 days as a "propaganda coup" for al-Qaeda. They are a gift to "propagandists" that will drive the brainwashed to "acts of martyrdom", according to one former Metropolitan police commissioner. They are a threat to local community intelligence, according to the Government's own impact assessment on the Bill. The proposal is wrong in principle and dangerous in practice.

Barry Gardiner: The right hon. Gentleman has built his case on the instance of the two cases where, he says, the evidence was available on the 12th day, at the latest. Why, then, does he believe that the Crown Prosecution Service kept those individuals in detention through to the 27th or 28th day? Did it do that recklessly, or was there a reasonable belief that further evidence could be uncovered that would be material to a prosecution?

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly reasonable point. I am not surprised that he does so, because the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing has attempted on several occasions to misrepresent this point of view. I have said that the CPS did not act recklessly. There are issues that police forces and prosecutors have to decide on in every case. If they have 20 or more suspects to deal with, a prioritisation process inevitably takes place, as we saw in the Overt case. All those charged with the most serious charge of conspiracy to murder were charged before 21 days, and the massive majority of them were charged before 14 days. It is entirely understandable that the prosecutors and the police focus on that area first. That is why I am concerned—it is not an accusation but a concern—that one of the effects of this will be to leave until the end of the process the people who are innocent, or against whom there may be a suspicion although they are innocent. There is a serious danger that extending it any further will mean more innocent people being put in a cell for six weeks.

John Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem of extending the 28-day period is that it will have the opposite effect to that which the hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) suggests, because it will make it easier for people to say, "We've got plenty of time, so we need not speed up this process to the maximum"? Is not that something that any innocent person caught up in this must worry about?

David Davis: I understand my right hon. Friend's point, although I do not agree with it, in truth. However, there is a subtle related point. The CPS will seek to obtain a so-called full code charge—one with a 51 per cent. plus chance of conviction—because that is its guidance. If it is unable to obtain it, it may well want to use all the time available to try to do so instead of using the lower so-called threshold charge. The two people I mentioned were charged under the threshold charge arrangements. It is entirely possible—I do not know; it is pure surmise—that there was an attempt to obtain a full code charge. That is entirely legitimate and entirely the proper way for the CPS to act. The situation is not its fault, but our fault, because it arises directly out of the rules system that we created for it.

Julian Lewis: My right hon. Friend referred to people being released right up against the buffers, as it were. The Government are saying that the nightmare scenario is that someone would be released after 28 days and then go on to commit some heinous offence. They are also saying that the numbers of people involved in the exercise of 42 days' detention would be very small and in circumstances of grave threat. Surely it is hard to imagine any circumstances where if someone had to be released after 28 days, they would not be under the most intense surveillance thereafter. It is hard to see how even if they were released under those circumstances, they could then precipitate an atrocity on the scale that the Government anticipate.

David Davis: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are two aspects that relate to a small number of cases involving one, two or three people. This is where the Home Secretary differs from me in wanting the scope to act. It is entirely possible that the security agencies and the police could put a small number of people under close surveillance—through a control order, I suppose, if one believes that they work. It could be overt surveillance—there is no reason why a police car could not be put outside a house—or covert surveillance. All those things are possible.
	My hon. Friend reminds me of something that I forgot to say earlier. Implicit in some of the arguments made is that the people in question are a threat or danger to the public. The image conjured up is one of some sort of dangerous terrorist who will go out to bomb the nearest station or plane. Indeed, the Home Secretary implied that when she spoke of 28 days' detention putting the public at risk.

Rob Marris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Davis: No, not at this point.
	As a result of the procedures that I described before, the people dealt with last under the system tend to be the least dangerous. They were not the ones charged with conspiracy to murder. In fact, in the two cases that we are talking about, they were subsequently released on bail. If they were released on bail, the courts clearly did not think that they posed an ongoing threat to the public. I am afraid that that argument falls in tatters, too.

Rob Marris: Can I gently suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there is a big contradiction at the heart of his position? On the one hand, he cloaks himself in the principles of ancient civil liberties, going back to Magna Carta and so on, but on the other, he goes on to advocate alternative devices to get round those very civil liberties. For example, he advocates the use of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, post-charge questioning and intercept evidence, and he advocates the charging of someone with a lesser offence and holding them while a potentially greater offence is investigated. That is a contradiction in his position. Is it principled or is it practical?

David Davis: Earlier, I did not pull up the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), when he attributed that view to me. It is not my view, and has never been my view. However, let us take one of the hon. Gentleman's cases of an incursion on our civil liberties. He says that the use of intercept evidence in court is such an incursion. No, the incursion on our civil liberties occurs when the intercept is made. That is why there are warrant arrangements and controls on intercepts. Not using such evidence in court has nothing to do with civil liberties—it is to do with a judicial decision and an intelligence decision. He should have got his case a bit straighter.
	Some weeks ago, the Government were clearly at risk of losing this aspect of the Bill, so they conjured up a series of so-called safeguards. Interestingly, given what was just said to me, they are an attempt to import—almost in the words of the Home Secretary—a diluted version of the Civil Contingencies Act into the Bill. Again, this comes as something of a surprise. The House will recall that Ministers spurned the Civil Contingencies Act model for months and said that it was inappropriate, fundamentally flawed and a draconian response. I begin to wonder who wrote the Act—I thought that it was this Government.
	If the Civil Contingencies Act is draconian, it is hard to understand why, in her proposals, the Home Secretary's deliberately diluted the safeguards that are supposedly based on the Act. The Home Secretary says that the 42-day power of detention could be invoked only if there were a grave, exceptional terrorist threat. The point was made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) earlier that that is not a condition for invoking an extension beyond 28 days; it is merely a notification requirement. Even then the notification requirement will not refer to that, but to an operational necessity. It is merely a notification requirement, entirely irrelevant to the unfettered discretion that the Home Secretary will retain.
	Even if it were relevant, let us consider what could constitute a grave, exceptional terrorist threat. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) made this point earlier: the small print of the new clause refers to events that cause or threaten
	"(a) serious loss of human life
	(b) serious damage to human welfare in the United Kingdom, or
	(c) serious damage to the security of the United Kingdom."
	I am being charitable on this. Those definitions are so broad—a massive expansion of the criteria in the Civil Contingencies Act—that virtually any terrorist plot would satisfy them. The Dhiren Barot plot in 2004 to set off a dirty bomb would easily meet those conditions, but the charging was concluded in 14 days. The Operation Crevice fertiliser bomb plot in 2004 would also meet the definition, but all the charges were brought within 14 days. The 21/7 attacks would certainly qualify, but again all the charges were brought within 14 days. The definition of grave, exceptional threat is not only irrelevant to the power of the Home Secretary to order 42 days' detention, it simply does not matter at all.

Gordon Marsden: The right hon. Gentleman has given a set of examples, but I am not sure that they are germane to his original question. I put this question to him: if he does not think that the definitions in the Bill constitute an adequate definition of a grave and serious threat, what criteria would he present to the House?

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I will try to give him the most serious answer I can— [ Interruption. ] —the one that the hon. Gentleman's question deserves, namely, yes. There are two categories of circumstance with regard to a threat to the state that the Government might face. One is a situation that obviously worries the Home Secretary, where perhaps 25 people are arrested and we are left with one, two or three at the end for whom we do not quite have enough evidence. We can deal with that, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), by a variety of other mechanisms, including— [ Interruption. ] Surveillance, I say to the Security Minister—I think that is who he is. It certainly can be dealt with that way, but it can also be dealt with by the threshold test for prosecution—the reasonable suspicion test.
	The other circumstance is where there are a vast number of attacks on the state at the same time. The Security Minister—the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing—referred to it as the three 9/11s test. Under those circumstances, we would be overwhelmed, and we would need a definition of a state of emergency. This is what the Government object to. The matter is important because full judicial review can apply a test as to whether a state of emergency applies, in a way we cannot as individuals discussing the matter in the House of Commons. That is the point of distinction, which is why we offered the Home Secretary very early on in the process a modification to get "CCA plus", as it was known in the jargon at the time, if she wanted it. We were willing to do that.

Jim Sheridan: At the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's contribution, he rightly reminded the House of the history of this country, and the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) mentioned during Prime Minister's questions the untimely death of Airey Neave. I gently remind the shadow Home Secretary, however, that his Government were responsible for internment without charge and without limit of hundreds, if not thousands, of Irish people. Would he therefore inform the House when and how he changed his principles on civil liberties?

David Davis: I regret to tell the hon. Gentleman that I was not a Member of the 1972 Government. I never believed in internment; it was a dreadful mistake, and the hon. Gentleman is exactly right about that. One of the problems that we have to address today is whether we learn from that mistake or not. That is what we are trying to do in this exercise.

Alan Beith: I want to take the right hon. Gentleman back to the important point that he was making, and one of its consequences. The definitions in the Bill are such that if, like the right hon. Gentleman and myself, one has occasion to read the documents on such matters, one has to conclude that such threats exist now. It follows, therefore, that one trigger is already present, and if the Government seek to activate the procedure, the only thing that the House of Commons can profitably discuss is whether the police have in detention persons whom it is necessary to hold for a period longer than 28 days. In other words, we will be left with the absurdity of the House of Commons behaving like a court.

David Davis: The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. He is very experienced in this area and he knows the subject backwards. He has, in fact, been used by the Government on the matter. He points out what is fundamentally flawed in the Bill. This House is not a court. It cannot be and it should not be.

John Baron: Having served in Northern Ireland, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that internment was not just a mistake, but counter-productive. It went directly against the armed forces because terrorists were able to go into communities and recruit actively, on the basis of internment, much better than they could otherwise. We do not want to make that mistake in this country with communities from whom we seek co-operation.

David Davis: That is exactly right, and that is why so many of the chief constables and ex-chief constables whom the Home Secretary does not quote feel that the measure is very dangerous.

Jacqui Smith: Like who?

David Davis: Geoffrey Dear, Her Majesty's former inspectorate of constabulary, who said in terms that many of his currently serving colleagues say the same.
	The other problem is that there are no additional judicial safeguards over and above what we have now for the individual. The House need not take my word for that; indeed, David Pannick QC, a leading practitioner in the field, the Government's counsel of choice and the man who literally wrote the textbook, provided a formal legal opinion on the Bill:
	"Not only do the Amendments fail to replicate the safeguards in the 2004 Act but they fail, significantly or meaningfully, to provide similar or analogous safeguards."
	That is the point that the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) raised earlier.
	The truth is that the Government's so-called concessions are not a serious attempt to sustain consensus by providing proper checks and balances of the Home Secretary's now draconian powers. They are a vain attempt to save face. The Government have salami-sliced the safeguards, watered down the checks and buried an issue of high principle in a blizzard of fine print.

Diane Abbott: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Why are those Members who are opposed to the principle of 42 days' detention without charge prepared to accept the Civil Contingencies Act or the existing legal possibility of derogating to the European convention on human rights? It is because both the CCA and the power of derogation could be used only in exceptional circumstances. The fear in the Muslim community in my constituency, and in Muslim communities up and down the country, is that if the 42-day period goes on the statute book in the terms proposed, it would become routine, with all the negative consequences for our security and for community cohesion that we have heard about.

David Davis: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Lady.
	There is nobody in the House—not one person—who does not feel horror at the loss of life or the pain and mutilation suffered by the victims of terrorism. But two wrongs do not make a right, least of all if what we do is ineffective, unnecessary or even counter-productive, as the hon. Lady has just pointed out.
	I have no sympathy whatever for terrorists. However, to put the issue in real terms, not on paper, I want hon. Members to imagine what it feels like for someone who is innocent under the proposed regime. They are taken from their bed in the early hours of the morning, which is what normally happens. They are locked in a cell for six weeks—1,000 hours—and they do not know why: not what they are accused of, not what the suspicions are, not what the evidence is. They do not know what is happening to their job. They do not know what is happening to their reputation. They do not know what is happening to their wife or their neighbours. They do not know what is happening to their children, who sometimes face the harsh cruelty of other children. They do not know that for six weeks—1,000 hours. No money on this earth will compensate for that.
	What we have is the worst of all worlds: a symbolic assault on liberty that is unnecessary, a change in the law that is counter-productive and a procedure that is unworkable. We do not defend our liberties by sacrificing our liberties. We must reject the Government's proposals.

Keith Vaz: I begin by thanking the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) not just for giving formal evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs when we considered the Government's counter-terrorism proposals, but for the private notes that he sent me and other members of the Committee, which were extremely helpful in allowing us to make our final determination.
	The right hon. Gentleman and others are quite right: this is an occasion of high politics, because this is Parliament, and of high drama, because of the outcome of the vote. More importantly, however, this is an occasion of high stakes, because we are dealing with the protection not just of our people, but of the liberties of individuals. Everyone, in all parts of the House, will take the issue and this debate very seriously indeed.
	Last year, the Committee held an inquiry into the Government's counter-terrorism proposals. It began as a short inquiry, looking into the way in which those proposals had developed and at the 28-day period. Shortly afterwards, however, following the Prime Minister's statement to the House, we extended the inquiry to cover a number of other aspects. We took evidence from Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the deputy assistant commissioner, Peter Clarke, the director of human rights for the police, the director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti, and the Prison Service.
	We sought the opinion of the members of what was called the Forest Gate two— Mr. Mohammed Abdul Kahar and Mr. Abul Koyair, who had been detained by the police and then released. We also took evidence from Rachel North, a writer and one of the survivors of 7/7, as well as from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, speaking for the Opposition, and the then Liberal spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg).  [ Interruption. ] We did indeed take evidence from the Home Secretary—I am coming to her, but she has to wait her turn.
	Those evidence sessions and the fact that we took evidence from a wide variety of individuals and organisations were important, because we wanted to produce a thorough report and to ensure that we covered all the points that were made to us. We also took evidence from the Home Secretary, who answered 149 questions and appeared before us twice, on one occasion at very short notice, leaving Cabinet before time to get to us. The co-operation that we received from the Government and others was extremely helpful.
	We came to the conclusion that there was absolutely no evidence to support a permanent extension of the 28-day period to 42 days. We felt that the nature of permanence was such that no information placed before us could justify such an extension.

Paul Goodman: Did the right hon. Gentleman take evidence from Mr. Khurshid Ahmed, the chairman of the British Muslim Forum? I ask because Mr. Ahmed was reported yesterday as having views that justified the headline "UK's top Muslim backs '42 days'", but he is quoted this morning as saying:
	"In some cases 28 days have been needed but there has not been a case demonstrated to go beyond."

Keith Vaz: Anyone could have given evidence to our Committee. We did not take evidence from that particular gentleman, although he has said that he is in favour of the extension. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we could not take evidence from absolutely everyone involved. I have read a list of those involved, but anyone could have submitted evidence to us.
	Despite saying that there was no case for an extension of the permanent limit of 28 days, we made it clear not just in the most recent report, but in a previous report, when the Committee was chaired by my right hon. Friend the now Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills—some of the members who contributed to the 2006 report are still serving on the Committee—that the current limit of 28 days might prove inadequate in the future. Both the Home Secretary and, more particularly, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner told us that they foresaw circumstances in which an extension would be necessary. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and the former spokesman and current leader of the Liberal Democrats both saw that as a possibility in certain circumstances. We noted that Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney-General, who was part of the Government when they put forward their proposal for 90 days, also envisaged the possibility of an extension in the future.
	We considered at some length Liberty's proposals that part 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 could be used in those exceptional circumstances where we both felt that it would be necessary to go beyond 28 days. We concluded, however, that the Act as drafted was not intended to deal with a situation of that kind. I pay tribute to Shami Chakrabarti and Liberty for the way in which they have engaged not just with the Select Committee, but with hon. Members and the Government. It is common knowledge that Liberty met the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and others to discuss the legislation. It is right to engage with organisations such as Liberty, which has a wealth of knowledge and experience that can be put to great use. We felt that the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 was not the right vehicle, however, because we did not believe that the best way to deal with a situation of this kind was to have a state of emergency. Indeed, as the House knows, if the 2004 Act is adopted, it will take the period well beyond what is envisaged in the Government's proposals.
	We urged the Home Secretary to begin urgent discussions with other parties to try to build consensus. I know that she and others have been criticised for engaging with Members of Parliament. Some very cynical points have been made—not so far in today's debate, if I may say so, but outside the House—about why the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing should be discussing matters with Members of Parliament. Of course they should. That is the nature of government. How dreadful it would be if the Government decided on a particular course of action and then never consulted anybody else. I hope that Home Secretary will not mind my having a slight dig at her—I am, after all, supporting her tonight: if only the Government had done the same thing over police pay, there would have been a different scenario. That aside, this engagement is extraordinarily important and has helped to bring a better proposal before the House; it has certainly moved a long way since the original proposals were made in July last year.

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, my neighbour in Leicestershire, for giving way. I am listening to what he says, I understand that he is supporting the Bill and I think that engagement can, indeed, lead people to change their minds. However, I also understand that he and his Committee were originally against any extension to 42 days, so will he take the opportunity to crush the churlish and ridiculous rumour that at some stage in his discussions with the Home Secretary and the Government, the issue of knighthoods or anything like that was mentioned?

Keith Vaz: If a knighthood were on offer, it would sit better on the shoulders of the hon. Gentleman, representing as he does a county seat in Leicestershire.  [Interruption.] No, it was certainly not offered—but I do not know; there is still time.
	To be serious again, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman was seeking to be in making that ridiculous comment, our conclusion was endorsed by 11 votes to one in a cross-party inquiry that included four Conservative Members—the hon. Members for Newark (Patrick Mercer), for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter)—and a Liberal Democrat, the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne). Our conclusion was that there may be in future the possibility of an extension, and we set out very clearly the grave and exceptional circumstances that might exist.

David Davies: The right hon. Gentleman does an excellent job of chairing the Committee and of encouraging consensus there, which is very important for Select Committees. Does he agree, however, that great concern was expressed by some members of the Committee about 42 days and that, in the end, the report was almost unanimously signed off because we wanted to make it clear that if there were to be an extension beyond 42 days, safeguards had to be in place. That did not necessarily imply full support for an extension beyond that period.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; of course there was controversy about this issue in the Committee, as there is in the House more widely. The fact remains that by 11 votes to one, the Committee decided that there was a possibility of exceptional circumstances arising in the future and we set out carefully the wording, referring to "grave" and "exceptional" circumstances in which an extension might be sought. The only member of the Committee to vote against was my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), for whom I have the highest regard. He has been absolutely consistent on this matter from the time that he put forward the 28-day rule. I have huge respect for him and I recall his saying to the Committee that he felt that this was opening a window that we would, in his words, regret. He feared that the Government would use the provision in future to claim that exceptional circumstances demanded a further extension.

Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Keith Vaz: I shall give way in a moment. The fact is that the Committee decided in a near unanimous report that, in future, such circumstances might arise, just as the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 accepts that an emergency situation could arise in future.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does my right hon. Friend accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was absolutely right to express his concerns about this matter? It has come to pass in a very few weeks that the Government want 42 days, and I suspect that in a couple of years' time, another Home Secretary will want even more. That is the nature of proposals that endlessly give politicians more powers over the process of detention.

Keith Vaz: I have known my hon. Friend for many years. He was the first Member to support me when I was selected to stand in Leicester, East, so I have a high regard for him and for the way in which he defends the civil liberties of his constituents, but he is wrong. That is not what is being proposed today, and I am glad to be able to clarify that for him. We have made it very clear that this is not a permanent extension and I would not vote for a permanent extension beyond 28 days— [Interruption.] No, I would not. This is a specific extension on an emergency basis. The Select Committee said in 2006, before I was even a member of it, that there would be circumstances in the future in which the period should be extended. In December, the Committee, which I now chair, decided by 11 votes to one that there would be grave and exceptional circumstances, and the Government have merely adopted our language.

Dominic Grieve: rose—

David Howarth: rose—

Keith Vaz: I give way to the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who has just taken silk.

Dominic Grieve: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has looked carefully at the Government's proposals and I agree with him that the phrase "grave exceptional terrorist threat" might, given its ordinary English meaning, be taken to connote the sort of emergency that is akin to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. However, does he agree that if we look at new clause 20, we find that the definition of a "grave exceptional terrorist threat" is extremely wide—much wider than that of a state of emergency? Does he also agree that the bizarre aspect of the Government's proposals is that the basis will not be a grave exceptional terrorist threat, which Parliament will be asked to decide on in any case, as we will be asked to vote on an order that is simply a report on an operational need for a further extension of the maximum period of detention? Will the right hon. Gentleman please explain what the Home Secretary seems to have been incapable of explaining—how the House will be able to carry out its scrutiny processes in practice and how the Civil Contingencies Act in any way approximates to what the Government are actually doing?

Keith Vaz: I am satisfied that the safeguards that the Government have put in place will deal with all the issues that the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned. I am satisfied that the proposed parliamentary scrutiny is sufficient. I am pleased that the Home Secretary has lowered the period from 30 days to seven. Of course, if we could all have our lives again, it would have been much better if the Civil Contingencies Act had been amended so that these proposals were not brought forward, but we are not there at the moment, and I am satisfied that Government's changes will deal with that situation— [Interruption.]

Several hon. Members: rose —

Keith Vaz: I am satisfied about that, and I am quite clear that the parliamentary, judicial and administrative scrutiny that the Home Secretary and the Government propose to give to Parliament and the judges is sufficient to deal with this issue.

David Winnick: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I certainly will not say anything unkind. I would not do so in any circumstances, especially after his kind words about me.
	My right hon. Friend sent out an e-mail to colleagues urging—together with a number of my hon. Friends—support for the Government. It says:
	"We are adamant that the legislation",
	which is now being debated,
	"will affect only those who would use terrorism against our people".
	How do we know that? Is there not a danger that we will be declaring people guilty who may not be guilty and who may be released? Those are very dangerous words. I hope he will reflect on that.

Keith Vaz: I cannot believe that any e-mail that I could send out could be regarded as dangerous. I and many colleagues, some of whom are here today, were concerned to ensure that people understood, because if my hon. Friend considers the signatories to that letter, he will see that many of them, including me, represent large numbers of members—

David Winnick: And voted for the 90 days, of course.

Keith Vaz: And voted for the 90 days. But those people represent members of the ethnic minority communities, which will be affected by the legislation. That is why—

Andrew Robathan: So will everyone.

Keith Vaz: Yes, everyone will be affected, but the figures suggest that proportionately more of those who have been detained are members of the ethnic minority communities. That is why it was extremely important that we, representing those constituents, were able to say that.

Diane Abbott: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. On the letter that he and other of my hon. Friends signed, the less said the better. He knows well and good what Muslim communities in this country think about the Bill, but does he not understand that it is not sufficient merely to assert that he is satisfied with the process of parliamentary scrutiny? Will he explain to us how Parliament can exercise scrutiny without having facts in front of it?

Keith Vaz: I know that my hon. Friend is upset because I did not ask her to sign the letter, but I knew that she would not sign it, so there was no point in putting the text before her. She will know very clearly from the text of that letter what it says and why it was sent out—

Diane Abbott: How can we exercise scrutiny?

Keith Vaz: I say to my hon. Friend—

Diane Abbott: How can we exercise scrutiny?

Keith Vaz: I say to my hon. Friend that I am satisfied that we will be able to do so. If I was not satisfied with what the Home Secretary has said and if I believed—

Diane Abbott: You are easily satisfied.

Keith Vaz: No, I am not easily satisfied.

Diane Abbott: Yes, you are.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is replying to an intervention. I call Mr. Vaz.

Keith Vaz: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend and I go back a long way.
	I represent a constituency that, by 2010, will have a majority of Asian people living in it. It will be the only city in Europe in which a majority of the citizens are from ethnic minority communities. I would not vote for this measure if I felt that they would be disproportionately affected in any way.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Keith Vaz: I will not take any more interventions.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Keith Vaz: All right, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), who is a member of the Select Committee.

Martin Salter: I thank the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee for giving way. He is perhaps having a tougher time than any of the Front Benchers at the moment.
	Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is somewhat bizarre that those on the Conservative Benches are now praying in aid the Civil Contingencies Act when four members of the Home Affairs Committee put their names to the following words:
	"We considered...that Part 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act (CCA) 2004 could be used in exceptional circumstances...However, we concluded that this was not an intended use of the powers under the CCA, that there were significant legal problems and it would not be sensible for a national state of emergency to be triggered in the middle of a major investigation."
	Is it not crystal clear that when Conservative Members have had an opportunity to examine that proposal, they have found it wanting?

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend will not draw me down the road of criticising members of the Committee, as I am due in Monmouth on Sunday and Monday. I do not want to upset the hon. Member for Monmouth, who is not responsible for what his Front Benchers say almost in the same way as we are not responsible for our Front Benchers. However, I will say that it is very clear that the Committee—this is where all this started—made it clear that there would be exceptional circumstances. That is what the Government have accepted. If the Government are prepared to accept the words of an all-party Select Committee—albeit achieved in controversial ways, as was the case, because this is a controversial subject—I am happy to accept that.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Keith Vaz: I shall give way once more, to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer).

Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, whose chairmanship I admire and enjoy.
	May I make it quite clear that I and the three other Conservative members of the Home Affairs Committee looked carefully at the Civil Contingencies Act—I was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill—and we quite clearly understood that there were powers within the legislation that, were they modified, could be highly sensible, highly useful and directly applicable in the rare circumstances that the Chairman and other members of the Committee agreed might exceptionally occur?

Keith Vaz: Indeed, that is exactly what the discussion was all about, but at the end of the day we concluded that there were exceptional circumstances. We did not feel that we could use the Civil Contingencies Act, which is what we said at the end of the report. But the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—this was considered.

Patrick Mercer: Once again, I am grateful to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee for his generosity. That, surely, is entirely consistent with the point that Conservative Front Benchers and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the shadow Home Secretary, have been making.

Keith Vaz: The shadow Home Secretary has always believed that the Civil Contingencies Act is sufficient for the needs of the Conservative party on this issue, but we as a Committee concluded by 11 votes to one that it was not.

Dominic Grieve: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Keith Vaz: No, I will not. I have been speaking for 21 minutes, and it is important that other Members have an opportunity to take part in the debate.
	I want to raise with the House the issue of community engagement—my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has already raised it—and the specific concerns of the community. I say this to my hon. Friend and others in the House: she mentioned the letter that was signed by 17 Members of the House, but obviously, as we know, not by her. However, my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood), for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar), for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik) and for Tooting (Mr. Khan) all signed it.

Diane Abbott: Under duress.

Keith Vaz: I say to my hon. Friend that they did not do so under duress. They happily signed the letter.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all hon. Members that there should be decorum as well as debate in the House.

Keith Vaz: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. To be very clear, before the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) jumps to his feet, none of those people was offered a knighthood for signing the letter. It is not in my power to give such honours. They signed the letter in good faith because they believed that the safeguards that had been offered by the Government were sufficient for the communities that they represent. Of course they have—

Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Keith Vaz: No, I will not give way again. Of course those Members represent people other than members of the Muslim faith, but each and every one of them is respected and acknowledged within their communities. It is extremely significant that they should all have singed the letter.

Mark Durkan: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I want to ask about him and other Members who signed the letter being satisfied about the scrutiny that will be offered and the safeguards, and how those will offer protection to the communities that those Members represent. In the event of the procedure being put in place and Parliament being convened, possibly during a recess or an election, what will hon. Members tell the families and communities who come to them and whose loved ones have been detained? What will those Members say in this Chamber, and what can they say, that will make scrutiny effective and make them credible as representatives in front of their own constituents?

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman has considerable knowledge of these issues because of what happens in Northern Ireland, so we listen to him with enormous care, but the proposed safeguards are sufficient. The Home Secretary will not come to the Dispatch Box and discuss individual details of cases: she cannot do that.

Mark Durkan: What do Members tell their constituents?

Keith Vaz: If the constituents are detained under the current law, the current law must take its course.

Mark Durkan: What if they are detained under this procedure?

Keith Vaz: I assure the hon. Gentleman, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central, that under the emergency provisions proposed by the Home Secretary there will be redress for those who feel that they have been treated unfairly. In my view, the procedure is very simple. It will allow the House to decide whether to endorse what the Home Secretary is proposing, and that is good enough for me.

William Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Keith Vaz: No, I will not. I gave way to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) because of his knowledge of these matters.
	As I have told the Home Secretary in conversations with her, and said publicly in articles that I have written, I am also concerned about community engagement. It is clearly important for us to bring communities with us; we cannot win the war on terrorism unless we do that. Only last week, the Home Secretary announced the provision of £12.5 million that she hopes will be spent on preventive work in the community—

Jeremy Corbyn: In Leicester!

Diane Abbott: In Leicester!

Keith Vaz: I think that the money will be of great benefit to the people of Islington and Hackney, and to those all over the country, as they seek to work and engage with the Government on this issue. I do not think it right for us to feel that we cannot carry communities with us, although I am keen to ensure that the resources that the Government are allocating are allocated fairly and do the job that they are intended to do.
	Finally, let me say something about references to the director general of MI5 and the police. I have not heard the director general of MI5 say—to me or to the Committee—that he wants the period to be extended from 28 days to 42, and the Government are not maintaining that he has said it to them, because that is not his job. The job of the director general of MI5 is to advise the Government about the threat. In his speech, which was presumably on the record—if he did not want it to be reported, he should not have made it to the Society of Editors—the director general, Jonathan Evans, was very clear indeed. Some of the facts have already been given by the Home Secretary. At least 2,000 individuals who are believed to be a direct threat to the safety of our citizens are currently in the United Kingdom, there have been 20 known plots, and 200 suspect groups are being monitored. There have been 15 attempted terrorist attacks in Britain. It is a matter of record, because it is in our report, that the Committee met the director general of MI5. We were not prepared, quite rightly, to discuss what he said to us, but he has said publicly that those threats exist, and are real and growing. That is the advice that he can give.
	In their evidence, the police—Sir Ian Blair, Peter Clarke and others—made it clear to us that they wanted the current period to be extended. I think that Sir Ian Blair talked about "up to 60 days". The police have made the case, and it is not for the security services to do so; nor is it for the Director of Public Prosecutions to do so. I have enormous respect for Ken Macdonald, and we readily agreed that he should appear before the Committee because he had not given evidence for its 2006 report. He made it clear that he did not consider the current period sufficient, but he also said that it was not up to him to decide whether it should be extended. That judgment can be made only by Parliament, and he will deal with whatever Parliament decides.
	I think it quite wrong for Members to start passing the buck to those outside, saying that this or that individual is against the proposal.

David Winnick: It is all part of the debate.

Keith Vaz: It is part of the debate, but it is not a conclusive part of the debate to say that because Jonathan Evans has not said that he wants an extra 14 days, we are not prepared to give him those 14 days. That is for us to decide.
	I am very pleased with what the Government have done since these proposals were announced a year ago. This is the right course of action.

Gordon Prentice: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Keith Vaz: No.
	I hope that the dialogue will continue, but I firmly believe that the Home Secretary has conducted this matter properly, giving Members of Parliament an opportunity to express their concerns. Let me end by saying this to her. If she were proposing a permanent extension from 28 days to 42, I would not vote for this measure. I shall be voting for it because it is an emergency, temporary provision that will allow a permanent situation to be dealt with for that very short period. I know that the Home Secretary has given us those guarantees, and I look forward to her repeating them when she winds up the debate.

Christopher Huhne: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). In my speech, I shall first explain why an extension of detention without charge matters to ordinary people and their freedoms, then I shall examine the weakness of the Government's case for such an extension and the feeble parliamentary safeguards offered by Ministers, and finally I shall argue that such excessive powers may be seen as illegitimate by substantial sections of our nation, and may act as a recruiting sergeant for the extremists.
	Let me begin by trying to explain why the powers of executive detention contained in the Bill and the amendments are so serious. They are not powers that apply just to other people; they are powers that could apply to any one of us here today. We could be arrested on our way home, in a case of mistaken identity, and locked up—if the Government have their way—not for one day or seven days, but for six weeks. What would a person's employer think? What would their family think? Surely, they might say, the police could not really detain someone without some pretty clear evidence, using powers under a terrorism Act. As every street gossip will tell you, there is no smoke without fire.
	We know, however, that of the six people who have come close to being detained for close to the existing limit of 28 days, half have been released without charge or any subsequent proceedings. Indeed, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is no longer in the Chamber, it is inevitable that if these powers go on to the statute book they will be used for lower-priority cases, because the easier cases will have been dealt with first. The number of innocent people who are detained under the new powers is therefore likely to be particularly high.

Jacqui Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that one of our amendments would limit the use of an extended period of pre-charge detention to the most serious terrorist offences, which would carry a life sentence for those found guilty?

Christopher Huhne: The point, surely, is that if the Home Secretary had evidence that the most serious offences had been committed, there would be no need to extend the period without charge, because she would be able to go ahead and charge the people. My fundamental point stands: on the basis of the existing track record, this will affect people who may well be found to be entirely innocent. We know that three of those six people spent a month of their lives not even knowing what offence they had been accused of committing.
	We could all name cases in which great injustices have already been perpetrated. One such case is that of the Algerian pilot Lotfi Raissi; an even more tragic case is that of the young Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes. Most recently, there is the case of the students who were arrested for having terrorist materials, when they were writing a research report on Islamic extremism. The police do a commendable job in difficult circumstances, but they are human and therefore fallible. That is why we have a system of justice, and why checks and balances are crucial. It is also why we should not lightly concede yet another rise in the period of detention without charge.

Diane Abbott: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that holding people for six weeks when they do not know what they are being held for is in itself coercive? From the big miscarriages of justice in the 1980s, we know what innocent people will sign even when they have been held for far less than six weeks.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's intervention, and I entirely agree.
	Let me take the Government's case at face value. The Home Secretary argues that the Government need to extend the period of detention for terrorist suspects from 28 to 42 days because of the increased complexity of terror cases, citing the recent increase in the number of computer files and comparing the alleged airline bombing case in 2006 with the Dhiren Barot case of 2004.
	However, that argument rebounds on the Government in a very simple way. An extension of a mere two weeks would be entirely useless if each bit of evidence had to be waded through and assessed in the way that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary implied.

Lynne Featherstone: The argument about increasing complexity is often put forward, but is there not a case for expanding the capacity to deal with complex cases, rather than the length of time for which people can be held without charge?

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and she is of course absolutely right, but I want to make another point. It has been said that it might be necessary to read material equivalent to one third of the contents of the US Library of Congress within the proposed legal limit of 42 days. If so, that would require 240,000 police officers working eight-hour shifts—a total equivalent to all the police officers in this country, plus 100,000 others on loan from a friendly neighbour.
	In fact, the tools available to the police have also increased in power so that sense can be made of large amounts of data. Clearly, search engines are available to others, as well as to Members of this House. Moreover, the Government do not seem to take the problem too seriously: they legislated in 2000 to make it an offence to withhold data encryption keys, but that offence did not come into force until 2007. So much for the sense of urgency.
	We have also heard that an inability to sift through data, whether encrypted or not, was not the cause even in those few cases that went close to the 28-day limit. In fact, the essential data issues were sorted out relatively quickly, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) showed very effectively. Liberty has pointed out that in two of the three cases in which people were subsequently charged, the evidence relied on to bring those charges was obtained within not 27 days, or 26 days, but within four and 12 days, respectively.
	No other common-law country has seen the need to do such violence to its freedoms. The Government like to bog the debate down in comparisons with Roman-Dutch law, but I am leaving countries that use such law entirely aside. I am talking only about countries such as Canada, the US, Australia and New Zealand, which have legal traditions exactly parallel to our own. Canada retains a traditional 24-hour detention period without charge.

Dari Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that Lord Carlile's statements to the Committee were inaccurate and misleading? He said that the US Attorney-General had executive witness detention capability and was allowed to hold people for up to a year. He also said that similar powers were held by France and other countries, and that legal systems differ so much that comparisons are nonsensical. Was Lord Carlile being inaccurate? Was he misleading us?

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful for that intervention, but I specifically did not make a comparison with inquisitorial systems such as the French one. If the hon. Lady had been listening to me, she would have heard me say that Canada retains a traditional 24-hour period of detention without charge. In the US, the period is two days. Australia has extended the period to 12 days, in part because of the special cooling-off periods between interrogations. There are no provisions in the Bill to put in place the equivalent cooling-off periods that might justify an extension of detention along the lines introduced in Australia.
	The possible length of detention without charge is already more than twice as long in Britain as it is in other common law countries, even though we all face the same threats and technologies.

Chris Bryant: How long does the hon. Gentleman think the detention period should be? Should it be one day, or two, or a week?

Christopher Huhne: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not present for the Second Reading debate, as I remember that another Labour Member made exactly the same challenge. I made my position very clear then. At the moment, I am very happy with a period of 28 days. We should stick with that period because that is what we voted for, but we need to regard it as an emergency measure and keep it under constant review—especially given the lack of evidence that even 28 days is necessary. The hon. Gentleman asks about alternatives to the knee-jerk, Kafkaesque extension of detention without charge that is being proposed, but I believe that all the alternatives are much to be preferred.
	The Bill allows questioning to continue after charge, and we welcome that. We should also allow intercept evidence, as is the case in Australia and the United States. The Committee considering the Bill took evidence from Sir Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who said that his counterparts in the countries that I have named found our refusal to use intercept evidence astonishing.
	Most importantly of all, Sir Ken has described the considerable flexibility that the Crown Prosecution Service has to bring charges, which it can do even if it is felt at the time that the chances of a successful conviction are less than 50 per cent.—the normal test. In fact—this is crucial—Sir Ken pointed out that the CPS had had a 92 per cent success rate with terrorist convictions since the beginning of last year. As a result, he is on record as saying that the new powers are unnecessary. That is significant precisely because, if it is possible to secure a 92 per cent. conviction rate in cases brought after terrorist events have happened, as has been the case over the past two years, Sir Ken has the flexibility to achieve even more success should he decide to bring charges before a terrorist event occurs.
	Detention without charge for terrorist suspects has already risen from seven days to 14 days and then 28 days, just since 1997. The sad truth is that Ministers are using this simple number as a proxy to persuade the public that the Government are tough on terror. In fact, such blunt instruments run the substantial risk of alienating the communities that we need to have on board if we are to fight terror effectively.

Dari Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, and I assure him that I am listening to him. A letter from the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which has been placed in the Library, makes it clear that
	"the more recent 28-day period was used in the course of an operation in 2006 that is currently sub judice and cannot be discussed publicly due to the imminent trial."
	Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that letter shows that the 28-day period is being used? If so, why is he claiming that there is no evidence that 28 days is appropriate?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Lady may not be aware of a rule of this House that sub judice proceedings can be discussed during discussion of proposed legislation. If she has a fact that she would like to put before us, as opposed to assertions and opinions, perhaps she will do so. As I have mentioned, what we know from ACPO's evidence is that there have been six cases that have gone near to, but not up to, the limit of 28 days. Therefore, it is, I believe, accepted in all parts of the House—I hope the hon. Lady accepts this, too—that there is no evidence for any extension beyond 28 days. Even Ministers put the case for an extension in entirely contingent terms, and talk about what may happen in the future if a whole series of other events occur.
	The police need intelligence, and they need witnesses prepared to give evidence. Britain's most senior Muslim police officer, Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur, has warned that these arbitrary powers could have counter-productive effects in the Muslim community, exactly as internment had in Northern Ireland in the '70s. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has correctly warned us, internment drove a wedge between communities and the security services. Intelligence dried up, witnesses refused to come forward to give evidence, and the scars remain to this day. Tough macho measures proved horribly counter-productive, exactly as these measures may. I agree that there is not a precise parallel between what is proposed in the Bill and internment, but there is a parallel in terms of the sentiment and motivation behind these proposals and, as a result, there may very well be a parallel in the unfortunate counter-productive effects. Have we not learned the lessons of 30 years ago?

Adrian Bailey: May I read to the hon. Gentleman a quote from Sir Ian Blair's evidence to the Public Bill Committee? He said:
	"What we have said repeatedly is that, given the circumstances that the UK has faced over the last few years, the growth in the number of plots, the number of conspirators in each plot and the magnitude of their ambition, a pragmatic inference can be drawn that sooner or later we are going to need more than 28 days." ——[ Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 11.]
	Does the hon. Gentleman think the Government should disregard that?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that has been made from the Government Front Bench on a number of occasions. Indeed, I have conceded that there is no evidence for the Government's case other than the possibility that there may be circumstances which have not yet occurred. If the hon. Gentleman feels that fundamental freedoms that have been part of the rule of law and due process in this country for centuries should be ditched on the basis of a hypothetical circumstance, he will vote accordingly, but he will not have Liberal Democrat Members going along with him.

David Winnick: Should we not bear in mind that some of the Members who are so enthusiastic about the increase to 42 days were no less enthusiastic about voting for 90 days?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am even more encouraged, however, by the number of people who voted for and supported 90 days but who now recognise that circumstances have completely changed. They include Lord Falconer, the former Lord Chancellor, and Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney-General, both of whom highlight the point I have made: that the change in the nature of the threshold test means that circumstances are fundamentally different from when we last considered the issue of extension of detention without charge.

Mark Hunter: May I offer my hon. Friend an alternative quote from Sir Ian Blair? He has said on the record very clearly and simply:
	"We do not have a case that has required us to go beyond 28 days."
	Does my hon. Friend not agree that that comment, taken alongside similar comments from Sue Hemming of the Crown Prosecution Service and Sir Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, probably provides the most powerfully damning indictment of the Government's case?

Christopher Huhne: That is absolutely right. The evidence that Sir Ken Macdonald gave to the Public Bill Committee made it clear that the CPS is heavily involved in all these investigations from the earliest stage, so the evidence that Sir Ken gave is particularly telling.

Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman not consider the relationship between cause and effect when pondering an earlier intervention quoting Sir Ian Blair on the number of plots there are, and the increase in the number? Will the hon. Gentleman speculate about why there is such an increase, and why we are discovering more plots now? Is that because of provocation?

Christopher Huhne: I would not like to go as far as that, but the hon. Gentleman makes a point that I hope other Members will take into account.
	I wish now to turn to the so-called safeguards in the Government's amendments to the Bill.

John Baron: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to the important matter of the safeguards, may I return to the issue of international comparisons, as that adds power to his argument as to why 42 days is not required? Liberty's figures are very clear for other common-law jurisdictions—they show that other countries do not need more than a week—but the power of that argument is given extra force because, both across the Floor of the House and through written parliamentary answers, the Government have admitted that they have undertaken no similar comparison. They are not in a position to criticise those figures, because they have not investigated the comparisons properly themselves.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which has clarified the point.

Jacqui Smith: rose—

Christopher Huhne: I think the Home Secretary would now like to seek to clarify matters.

Jacqui Smith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman would want to advise the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) to take a good look at a letter I placed in the Library yesterday, which clearly spells out our view of the international comparisons.

Christopher Huhne: I am delighted that the Home Secretary has been spurred to answer in the nick of time ahead of this debate.

John Baron: rose—

Christopher Huhne: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman and the Home Secretary will continue that interesting joust elsewhere afterwards.
	Let me now turn to the so-called safeguards in the Government's amendments. First, it would still be up to the Home Secretary to determine whether the conditions for extended detention had been met. In theory, her decision has to be in response to a "grave exceptional terrorist threat", but that need hardly constrain her, as even the possibility of a threat remote from these islands would be enough. New clause 20 states:
	"In this Act 'grave exceptional terrorist threat' means an event or situation involving terrorism which causes or threatens—
	(a) serious loss of human life".
	That is not by any means restricted to the United Kingdom. This could almost be regarded as the "Tongan clause" as it would allow any "grave exceptional terrorist threat" in Tonga to trigger the extension by the Home Secretary of the period of detention without charge from 28 days to 42 days. That is not exactly the sort of safeguard this Parliament is used to having in connection with a matter involving fundamental freedoms.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is right to analyse this area of the Government's proposals, because it is key to whether they are workable. However, I am by no means persuaded that the Home Secretary needs the existence of a "grave exceptional terrorist threat" to extend the maximum period of detention, because as the Bill is drafted that is not a prerequisite for doing so. All that is required is a report that such a further extension is needed because it is necessary for one or more of the purposes set out in a subsection that is, effectively, about detaining people, obtaining evidence and carrying out analysis of that evidence.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention. That is above my legal pay grade, but I am sure that if this Bill were by some mischance to be put on to the statute book, it would keep many of his legal colleagues in fruitful employment for many years to come.
	Once the Home Secretary had triggered the extension beyond 28 days, there would be a seven-day period within which a debate and a vote would have to be held. Executive detention is thus automatically extended by these provisions to 35 days before Parliament would have the opportunity to set it aside.

Lynne Jones: I turn to the point about what would trigger these powers. Interestingly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) writing in  Tribune last week said:
	"There must be a genuine national emergency, the discovery of multiple and complex plots aimed at causing massive loss of life, the extent of which would overwhelm the capacity and resources of the police and security services and relate to a life and death situation with hundreds of people caught in a terrorist outrage."
	I am sure we would all agree that in such circumstances there might be a case, but is it correct that this is not the trigger that would give the Home Secretary the powers to ask this House to extend the emergency powers?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Lady is correct to point that out. I have searched in vain for the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East containing precisely the provisions that he suggested in that article; I fear that it does not appear to have made the amendment paper. Perhaps it will be a last-minute addition, rather like the Home Secretary's letter in the Library.
	In any case, it is very hard to see how the House will tread the narrow line between debate that could be prejudicial to a court case and general blather, which would simply boil down to whether the House trusted the judgment of the Home Secretary. That is hardly confidence-inspiring, and it is certainly not a serious check on the potential abuse of Executive power, so those who would believe that there are genuine safeguards in the Bill are misplacing their faith.
	The fight against terrorism is far too important to be reduced to populist symbols that would substantially curb our hard-won freedoms. This cause is central to the Liberal Democrats' belief in the rule of law, and in checks and balances on arbitrary power. The Government run the risk, with these provisions, of giving the terrorists exactly what they want, which is clear evidence of an insensitive and oppressive state. We must not, and we must never, become what we are fighting.

Andrew Dismore: I rise to speak to the new clauses and amendments that stand in my name, which have been tabled to give effect to recommendations made in the Joint Committee on Human Rights reports. I approach this issue with my eyes open; I am not wearing rose-tinted glasses. I remind the House that I was the first to raise concerns over the activities of extremists, from early 1998, when I was warning about Abu Hamza, Bakri Mohammed, Abu Qatada and many others. In those days, everybody thought that I was a bit of a nerd and nobody took any notice of me. I hope that today they will take notice of what I have to say, as they did after 9/11, but not before. As a consequence of what I did, I suffered hate mail, death threats and vitriolic personal attacks. In addition, five of my constituents—more than the number for any other constituency—were killed on 7 July 2005, so I do not approach this matter with any liberal leanings.
	I voted for 90 days, because at that time I saw no other option. I have since changed my position, because the Government have not made their case for new powers, we have experience of the 28-day maximum, the safeguards are not adequate, alternatives are available and I do not believe that the proposals will make us safer. In fact, they risk alienation and division in our society.
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights has reported on 11 separate occasions on counter-terrorism policy, and an array of our reports lie on the Table, tagged for today's debate. They all start from the same basic premise: that the state has a positive obligation in human rights law to protect us all from terrorism and violence; and that the state has a duty to prosecute and to make prosecution more effective and, as far as possible, to do so as part of ordinary criminal law. Each erosion of the normal process is, in itself, a result for the terrorist, who would undermine our freedoms and way of life. We run the risk of doing his work for him.

William Cash: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain to the House why he thinks that the opportunities made available through habeas corpus would not be able to satisfy the criteria that he has just described in terms of civil liberties?

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I shall come to that point later.
	I do not believe that the Government have made their case for the need for 42 days. In the evidence that they have given to us, the threat level has been described as "about the same". There have been assertions of a growing threat in terms of numbers, but no qualitative analysis or assessment has been provided. We should never underestimate the threat, which is of course serious, but equally we should not over-hype it. We need to give a clear and accurate picture in order to maintain public confidence. I think that it is instrumental that the three most recent attacks have been somewhat amateurish affairs, as we all know.
	The numbers that we are given could mean either that there are more plots and plotters, which would be worrying, or that the substantial extra resources that we have given the security services mean that they know more about such people than they knew before, when they were below their radar—that, of course, would be reassuring. The numbers relate to the general level of the threat, and that is not relevant to the 42-day debate at all. What is relevant to the debate is when the plotters are subject to arrest, if and when these plots become crystallised. We do not have much information about such matters, other than in respect of the cases that we know about. Such cases are far fewer in number than the thousands that we are told exist.
	Although the director of MI5 is prepared to give a lecture to the society of newspaper editors on this issue, he is not prepared to repeat his lecture to a parliamentary Committee and to take questions on it from such a Committee. We invited him to do so. We did not want to talk about the secret squirrel stuff. We wanted only to discuss the broad issues, but he was not prepared to come before us. We wrote to him in December 2007 asking for his assessment of the increase, but we have yet to receive a reply to that letter.

Kali Mountford: When we considered this matter in Committee, we were given some evidence by Sir Ian Blair of a growing threat. I am concerned, as I hope my hon. Friend is, that if we should decide at some point that we would need an extension of the time in which to examine evidence concerning somebody who is suspected of committing a terrorist attack on this country, that should not happen in a heated situation after some event. We should take such a decision after a calm and collected discussion, such as we are having this afternoon. Can he comment on that?

Andrew Dismore: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we need to discuss this in a rational way, and I shall be giving her an alternative, my amendment (a), which I hope she can support. It answers the point.
	The Government pray in aid a variety of plots and trials, but they have all been dealt with under the existing arrangements satisfactorily and effectively. The Dhiren Barot case has been trotted out again, but that was dealt with under the 14-day rule. That was one of the cases that they used in the argument for 90 days, which led to the compromise of 28 days, so that is an old argument that was dealt with two years ago. The parliamentary Labour party briefing refers to eight other plots, which were all dealt with under the 14-day rule, except the alleged airline plot, which was dealt with under the 28-day provisions. There is no evidence of anyone having been released when they not should not have been. The 28-day power has not been used for a year, and it has hardly been used at all. Yet, this new power is being sought on spec for what we are told are future extreme cases.

Anne Main: I wanted to ask the Home Secretary this earlier. Have we seen one shred of evidence that the figure of 42 days—or any other number above 28 days—has been justified? The figure appears to have been plucked out of the air speculatively to reassure people, yet it has not one shred of evidence to support it.

Andrew Dismore: The hon. Lady makes her point, and I shall not demur from it. We are told that the reserve power is needed for a "grave, exceptional terrorist threat". On 23 January, in the  Daily Mirror, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing asked us to imagine two or three 9/11s. On the "Today" programme on 2 June he said that there was a
	"substantial threat against the nation"
	and that we have a
	"backstop for truly exceptional situations"
	He also mentioned the "nightmare" and the "doomsday scenario". If that is so, the powers are already in place. I am talking about the power to derogate from article 5—the right to liberty—and to disapply a fundamental right that goes back to the Magna Carta of 1215.
	My amendment (a) provides a system to enable that derogation to take place. If there is a public emergency threatening the life of the nation, article 15 permits derogation from—that is, disapplication of—the right to liberty. A co-ordinated, large-scale attack on the nation's political, military and financial institutions, such as 9/11 in the US, would meet that test, never mind two or three 9/11s at the same time.
	Under derogation, the Government are entitled to take the measures that are strictly required for the exigencies of the situation. Derogation is not a new solution. The Belmarsh detainees were held under a derogation power, and the case failed on discrimination grounds. The control order powers in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 provided for derogating control orders, but they have not been used.
	My amendment sets out a process to enable the Secretary of State to make a designated derogation order in anticipation of any future need because of such a terrorist attack. It incorporates safeguards such as judicial review and parliamentary approval, and this proposal would give the Government everything that they profess to need—an emergency reserve power for the truly exceptional cases, with appropriate safeguards.
	Why will not the Government accept my amendment? As has begun to emerge, the Government want the reserve power not for the extreme cases, but for far less than their public statements suggest. They want that power not for two 9/11s or for a substantial threat against the nation. The letter from the Minister to the Human Rights Committee on 6 June states:
	"The definition of grave exceptional terrorist threat which we now propose would cover events or situations similar to the bombings in July 2005, or a plot to blow up a shopping centre or a plot to commit terrorist atrocities overseas involving serious loss of life. We do not think any of these are covered by the Civil Contingencies Act definition of an emergency."
	The July 2005 bombings were dealt with under the 14-day regime. The shopping centre example would not be a multiple plot. Atrocities overseas may be nothing to do with us. Today we had another letter from the Home Secretary that said that the attempted airline plot would have been a case in point, but that was dealt with under the 28-day procedure.
	The implication from the briefing sent to the parliamentary Labour party is that all the cases listed, which were dealt with under 14 or 28 days, would in future be subject to the 42-day maximum. The power is not meant for exceptional cases but for the sort of cases that have been dealt with adequately so far under existing powers.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman makes a case exclusively based on the application of the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, and the derogation in article 5. Why does he insist on that route, rather than that of habeas corpus, under which the court would have the right to make a proper inquiry if given that power in statute by this House?

Andrew Dismore: First, I will come to habeas corpus, as I promised the hon. Gentleman earlier. Secondly, we are subscribers to the European convention on human rights—and rightly so—and I propose a way in which we can lawfully do what the Government wish us to do in cases of major emergency.
	We have now had experience of the 28-day limit. I remind the House that 28 days was to be an exception, with the norm being 14 days and the issue subject to annual review. The DPP tells us that he has managed reasonably comfortably. Sue Hemming, the chief prosecutor, says that 28 days has proved to be "sufficient". We have already heard the figures for the alleged airline plot. Six were held beyond 14 days, with two charged just before 28 days and three released just before. The latter were not re-arrested or subject to control orders.
	The 28-day limit has been used only in two other cases. Up to now we have had no quantitative analysis of those cases, although the Opposition Front-Bench team produced some yesterday, which showed that there was little questioning of the suspects during that period. We have heard today that in fact the evidence to support a threshold charge was probably in place by 14 days for the two who were held up to the 28-day limit. However, until we receive the detail, we cannot be certain that that was the case. We must also take into account the possible urgency of the investigation. If we had had a 42-day limit, would those three people have been held for that time in the hope that some evidence might turn up, rather than for 28 days?
	The judicial safeguards proposed in the Bill are effectively the same as those for 28 days, save that the DPP and the chief constable have to authorise the application for the extension. The existing process is not fully judicial in accordance with article 5. The Government say that it involves a proper judicial hearing, but the case of Garcia Alva  v. Germany in the European Court of Human Rights makes it clear that the criteria that the Government operate do not match those that the court expects.
	Even if there were no problem with the process for 14 days, or even 28 days, it is wrong to say that neither would there be a problem for 42. The longer the period of detention, the more stringent the procedural safeguards need to be. The Government say that there has been no challenge to the extension process in court on the grounds of incompatibility, but there was: the case of Naseel Hussain, which was one of the first 28-day cases. It failed on a Catch-22: the High Court said that it could not review the decision of the High Court judge to extend the period of detention.
	That ruling would also, in effect, exclude habeas corpus. That court case decided that the warrant of further detention was a judicial hearing for the purposes of article 5.4. If that is so, that is the judicial hearing that would be required by habeas corpus, so any application for habeas corpus would be struck out by the court as an abuse of process. New clause 35 is very important because it would overcome that particular problem.

William Cash: That still does not resolve the problem of why the hon. Gentleman prefers to go down the route of the European convention on human rights and judicial review, when habeas corpus would be available.

Andrew Dismore: I support the hon. Gentleman's new clause and I see it as a matter not of either/or, but of both.
	We hear that there will be an ex gratia compensation scheme. We can infer therefore that the Government accept that the provisions do not comply with article 5, because article 5.5 provides for compensation for someone held in breach of article 5. As the compensation scheme is to be confined solely to cases under these arrangements, and not applied generally to people held on charge and released, one can only assume that that is the case. We must also consider the impact that that would have on other suspects—for example, those who may have been held on bail for a long time and then acquitted. They will say, "Well, the Muslims are getting money, why aren't we?" That could have an impact on community relations.
	New clause 1, which I tabled, suggests improvements to the judicial process including entitlement to judicial process; a statement of the basis for arrest; the gist of the material forming the grounds for suspicion to be given to the suspect; a special advocate for the closed part of the hearing; and entitlement for the judge to look at whether there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the suspect is involved in terrorism and, in other words, to check whether the arrest was justified in the first place. At the moment, judges are entitled only to consider whether the investigation was necessary and has been conducted diligently.
	New clause 37 would provide for judicial review of the Home Secretary's decision, if the existing arrangements stay in place, on whether there is a grave threat, whether a reserve power is needed and whether it is needed urgently. I am not sure whether the Government agree that those should be subject to judicial review; I suspect not.
	New clause 36 would provide that similar provisions to those in the Civil Contingencies Act should apply to the Human Rights Act and the emergency regulations, so that the courts could intervene and quash them if they were considered to be unlawful. I think that the Government agree with the point and it would be appropriate to include it in the Bill.
	On the question of parliamentary safeguards, the independent legal advice to the Home Secretary on whether the reserve power is needed would ask the same questions as a court, essentially considering whether an individual's detention would be appropriate. That will be passed on to the Select Committee Chairs, including me if I am still in office—I suspect that I probably will not be, considering the way that I am going. If I were still in office, on Privy Council terms, it is not quite clear what I would be able to do with that information. I would not be able to check whether it was accurate or to get advice on it. I would not be entitled to share it with members of my Committee. I would be entitled only to read it and to think, "Mm, interesting." I would not even be entitled to refer to it in a debate on extension before the House. Although the fact that it would be shared is welcome—I am a prurient, nosey chap who likes to know what is going on—it would not achieve a great deal.
	The safeguard allowing us to have debates within seven rather than 30 days is welcome, as is the fact that Parliament would be recalled. However, the debate will be even more circumscribed than we originally thought, not just for the reasons advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) but because the questions will be the same all the way through. The DPP and police report to the Secretary of State will be in similar terms to the application that they will have to make in an individual case. Independent legal advice to the Secretary of State will again raise the same issues. The advice to Parliament would be redacted to prevent any prejudice to the trial. The same issues will arise with the Secretary of State's order as arise with individual cases, as she will have to be satisfied about them when she comes to make the order. When Parliament comes to approve the order, it will consider the same issues again. Therefore, because we cannot risk prejudicing a trial, the debate may only be very general. It will consider the sort of things that we debated in the previous cases on the back of the statement, which is hardly sufficient to justify the possible deprivation of liberty not only of the suspect in custody but of any other suspects arrested over the next 30 days. Inevitably, too, it would be a whipped vote.

Dominic Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although it is absolutely right that the order would also cover the arrest of anybody else in the following 30 days, the trigger mechanism clearly implies that it would be precipitated by one case? That is the most likely outcome. Those circumstances will make it even more difficult to debate the issues surrounding the making of the order in this House, because the generality probably will not be there. The debate will be entirely dependent on the report, which will be made to the Secretary of State in the first place, on the operational need for an extension, relating probably to individuals.

Andrew Dismore: The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct. The same argument will continue in the debate on the reviewer's report six months later. Of course, we do not know when that will happen, because if the period of extension is repeated—if it is set for 30 days, then for another 30 days, then for another 30—will that six-month review take place after the expiry of the first 30 days or of the subsequent 30-day periods? Putting that to one side, the chances are that the reviewer's report will come before the House while the suspect is awaiting trial, so there is an even greater risk of prejudice when debating the reviewer's report.

David Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful case. Does he accept that the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is strengthened if one looks at the detail of what the Government are proposing in new clause 22? New clause 22(5) states that the report on which the whole thing is based
	"must also state that each of the persons making the report is satisfied that the investigation in connection with which the detained person or persons is or are detained is being conducted diligently and expeditiously."
	That means that there will have to be an individual case. If there is no individual case, there cannot be an extension.

Andrew Dismore: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct, and his point adds weight to the argument.
	The other safeguard, we are told, is that the power will be reduced in length to 30 days. That is an improvement on what we had originally, but it can be renewed back to back indefinitely by the repetition of the same process. It could go on to 30, 60, 90 or 120 days. Who knows?
	There are alternatives. The Joint Committee on Human Rights first proposed a package of alternatives in 2006 that offers a coherent, human rights-compliant alternative. For the big emergency cases—the 9/11s—we have the derogation process. For all the others, there are alternatives.
	The most important alternative is threshold charging. Many Members, I suspect, do not understand what threshold charging involves. It means that the individual is charged on the basis of reasonable suspicion of the commission of the offence based on admissible evidence, as opposed to arrest, which can be based on inadmissible evidence. It is predicated on how the investigation is anticipated to proceed. We can compare that test with the normal full code test of "more likely than not". Some 50 per cent. of terror cases so far have been charged on that basis. It has proved very effective in practice, with a conviction rate of more than 90 per cent. In my view, it is important that that process is made statutory with appropriate safeguards, and my new clause 2 will do that.
	Incidentally, if we use the threshold test as our international comparator rather than the full code test, we see that the threshold test in some of the other common law countries, such as America and some of the continental countries, is not that dissimilar from some of the questions that investigatory magistrates have to pose. Both sides of the debate have probably overstated their case for and against international comparators, but if the threshold test is used, the position is perhaps a little clearer.
	The second alternative is the new offence of acts preparatory to terrorism. It is a broad offence, and when charged on the threshold basis and in combination with that threshold test, it provides a broad and easy process for the prosecution service to follow. As we have heard, two of the alleged airline plotters were charged within 28 days with acts preparatory to terrorism on the threshold test. If, within 28 days, a reasonable suspicion cannot be established on the threshold basis that the accused has committed an act preparatory to terrorism—a very broad offence—the chances of our getting them for anything are probably negligible.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend. Given the research he has done, can he explain to me and the House what is wrong with a holding charge? A holding charge is used in criminal jurisprudence in every other aspect of crime, so why should it not be entirely available in terrorism cases?

Andrew Dismore: I think that the holding charge system is dishonest; it would undermine the justice system and bring us into disrepute. It would also run the risk that a suspect who had committed a more serious crime would be released on bail when he appeared before the court. I do not recommend that route.

Dari Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Dismore: I need to make some progress, as many Members want to speak.
	Alternative No. 3 is post-charge questioning, which we debated yesterday. Alternative No. 4 is my new clause 3, which proposes police bail with conditions similar to control orders for people on the fringe of plots, such as the inciters and funders—the sort of people we were talking about earlier. They could be closed down entirely while their computers were analysed. They could be prevented from communicating and from going where they want to go. That option was suggested at Paddington Green during our visit there.
	Alternative No. 5 relates to intercept evidence and the Chilcot review. Alternative No. 6 is more specialisation in the CPS, as is already happening. Alternative No. 7 would be more active case management by judges. Why are judges not tougher on some of the unjustified delaying tactics and obstruction deployed by defence teams? Alternative No. 8 involves a suggestion put to us by the Director of Public Prosecutions and relates to incentives for those on the periphery to give evidence—for example, lower sentences and witness protection, although obviously with appropriate safeguards.
	The Government response to that package is that they do not look at it as a package. They accept that such proposals would reduce pressure to go beyond 28 days, but say that they would not entirely eliminate the risk of running out of time. However, for that matter, 42 days or 90 days would not entirely eliminate that risk. As the DPP said to the Public Bill Committee, it is always possible to posit hypothetical scenarios; the question is whether they are "remotely likely".
	When the Joint Committee made its recommendation about putting threshold charging on a statutory basis, the Government response, in terms of the impact on affected communities, was:
	"Communities most likely to be affected may react adversely if they perceive that terrorist cases are uniquely charged on a lower evidential threshold."
	The inference of the Government's position must be that such communities would not react adversely if they perceived that people in such cases would uniquely be detained for 42 days. What a non sequitur. If the threshold charge created an adverse reaction, surely a 42-day period would, too.
	We have only to look at the briefing issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission to see what Muslim people really think. The Government say that Muslim communities are no different from any others—they want to be protected from terrorism. Of course they do. They want to be protected from the backlash. Of course they do. However, it is appropriate to note that in London everybody came together after 7 July and there was the opposite of a backlash. People were concerned to ensure that the Muslim community was protected and reassured.
	Finally, would the proposal make us safer? It is not a deterrent to terrorism, but an investigation tool. It could make things worse if the consequences are alienation, less co-operation, less information and less intelligence. There are risks in lesser cases—not in extreme doomsday cases, because derogation deals with those—that someone who should be charged is released after 28 days with no control order. What if they are released after 42 days? The offence of acts preparatory to terrorism and the other examples I gave offer an alternative package for such cases. The risks need to be balanced against the effect of releasing an innocent person, even with compensation, after six weeks.
	I regret to say that the Government have not made a case for the need for 42 days. Even if they had, derogation is available. We have experience of 28 days. Alternatives are available. The safeguards are inadequate. The proposal will not make us safer and I hope the House will not accept it.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, may I say to the House that I appreciate that the matters under discussion are extremely complicated, but a very large number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, and I am sure that the House wants to hear as many contributions as possible from hon. Members in all parts of the Chamber? If everybody makes a big effort to make their remarks as brief as possible, it would be appreciated by all hon. Members.

Michael Mates: When the House debated the 90-day detention limit last year, I abstained—not happily, because I do not happily go against the advice of my Front-Bench colleagues, but because I did not feel that the Government had made a sufficiently detailed case for the extension. Since then I have twice said to the Prime Minister—once in Prime Minister's Question Time and once when he made a statement about security—that a detailed case would need to be made if we were to be persuaded to change our minds. I am sorry to say that although the Government have gone some way down that road, they have not yet given any concrete reason why the extension is necessary, except to say that it may be required at some future event. That is a reasonable way to go, and I shall come to that point later.
	Let me refer back to the time when the Operation Crevice plotters were under investigation and on trial, and the Security Service carried out its biggest ever investigation; it should be congratulated on the success of that. Although the Intelligence and Security Committee received regular briefings about the progress of those cases, we did not know whether there had been any problems to do with the length of time for which the people concerned were detained, or whether it was causing any difficulty in bringing the charges and trials to a successful conclusion. It turns out that there was not any such problem in either of those cases, which are the two largest cases that the Security Service and the police have ever undertaken.
	One of the difficulties today has been that the Prime Minister said a few hours ago in Question Time that it was the Security Service that wanted the measures introduced; his words were very clear. The Home Secretary said exactly the same in her opening remarks today. I have known that that was not the case for some time, but until yesterday I felt myself unable to say why I knew that. Yesterday, on the Security Service website, Jonathan Evans, the director general of the Security Service, made it absolutely clear that that is the Security Service's position, saying that
	"we are not, and never have been"
	advising
	"the Government on pre-charge detention time limits."
	That is absolutely clear. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), the shadow Attorney-General, suggested—inadvertently, I think—that the Prime Minister misled the House. I do not say that, but the Prime Minister was wrong to say that the Security Service had wanted an increase in the time, and I am sorry to say that the Home Secretary was wrong to say exactly the same thing a couple of hours ago.
	I do not believe that the case has been made. I do not have a problem with the principle of detaining someone for longer if there is cause for it. Neither do I object in principle to someone saying, "We do not want to do it when or if there is a major terrorist incident." I am not happy about the Executive taking more powers for themselves, no matter what safeguards they write into a Bill. I am not making a party point; I would say exactly the same if our party was in government. The Government may want to plan ahead, but God forbid there should be an incident in which all the measures that we are discussing are necessary. This is the time to say, "The Executive have quite enough power. We must turn to the judiciary to decide the matter."
	If the Government came forward with a proposal that a High Court judge should consider individual cases when the police or security services said that they were in difficulty and needed more time, and the case was made to the judge, it would be acceptable for the period of detention to be extended. I say that because I believe that the British public trust the judiciary. I am sorry to say that they do not trust an overweening Executive. Again, that is not a party point. I am afraid that when Governments say, "This has to happen, otherwise something dreadful will take place," the public view it rather cynically. If a High Court judge were to say the same thing, that would be largely acceptable to the British people.

Dari Taylor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and Friend he is. I have listened carefully. What he is requesting is in the Bill, according to my reading. If an extension from 28 days is to be made, a High Court judge must approve that, on the evidence presented to him or her.

Michael Mates: That is the safeguard to which I was referring, but it is the Executive who will take the original decision. It is the authorities who will say, "This is what we are going to do. Now we will go and check it with a judge." Provided it is within the law, the judge will have to obey what Parliament has decided to do. If we take the Executive out of that equation, we will re-establish the trust that that process will happen independently and fairly.

William Cash: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Precisely because the statute defines what is lawful, is it not the case that if the circumstances described in the statute create an opportunity to exclude habeas corpus, we get into a ridiculous and impossible situation? That is where we seem to be moving.

Michael Mates: My hon. Friend, typically, has made that point four times, and I expect he will make it four times more.

William Cash: I will, until it is accepted.

Michael Mates: That is a point that my hon. Friend is making. I shall make my own.

Adrian Bailey: I have been listening to the right hon. Gentleman's argument, which has some force to it. However, he seems to have disregarded the fact that before signing the order, the Home Secretary must take independent legal advice from a non-Government lawyer. That requirement provides the necessary safeguards.

Michael Mates: I do not want to move into controversial areas, but the former Prime Minister took legal advice about a certain piece of paper from his own Law Officers. But I do not want to go down that road, and I want to be as brief as I can.

John Baron: Perhaps I can help my right hon. Friend a little. It is low hurdle that the judge has to consider. He does not have to consider whether the suspect is guilty or not; he simply has to consider whether proceedings are marching to time and whether there is likely to be new evidence. That is a low hurdle and does not involve the judiciary as we would accept it.

Michael Mates: That is absolutely right.
	There are further problems with the Bill. I accept that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have been looking for consensus, and I accept that that should not be a party political matter. The trouble is that the moment the Government realised that they had to start making concessions, they did not make the Bill better—they made it rather worse. In order to try and buy off some of the usual suspects, if I may use that phrase about some of my friends on the Government Benches, the Government introduced the concession of consulting Parliament.
	Parliament, of all people, should have no role to play in the matter. I shall not rehearse the arguments that others have expressed much more eloquently than I have about what would happen if a particular case—because it must be a particular case—came in front of Parliament to decide, after someone had been in the slammer for more than 28 days. That concession makes the Bill worse rather than better and the one thing that I can say is that that measure has not got a chance of surviving scrutiny at the other end of the Palace because it is not our business to second-guess judicial or Executive decisions of a judicial nature.
	If the Government, when they finally come back with what will be a much reformed Bill, are prepared to say—I am prepared to concede that there may be an event that is so cataclysmic, or it may be necessary to prevent a serious event from happening— that, because of the complicated nature of inquires, there must be detention for longer than 28 days, let that decision be taken independent of the Executive by a senior High Court judge. I believe that would be acceptable and if the Government proposed it, I would support it.

Dari Taylor: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates).
	I rarely quote from  The Sunday Telegraph, but today I want to quote from an article by Matthew d'Ancona in that paper because he presents the case and asks the appropriate question better than I could when he says:
	"We face a threat that is indeed new in scale, ambition, and complexity. The question is whether we have what it takes as a society to respond to novelty with new strategies."
	I had the privilege of being a member of the Committee that considered the Bill. It was a privilege because, unlike other Committees on which I have sat, it took a significant amount of evidence, so that everyone began to feel that they understood the wide parameters of the Bill that we were possibly attempting to improve, but most certainly hoping to achieve consensus on and support for.
	The evidence spanned that from the secretary of the Coroners Society, the Home Office terrorism specialist, Lord Carlile, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the Association of Chief Police Officers, Justice and Liberty. A vast range of excellent evidence was presented and carefully scrutinised by the Committee. We wanted to understand all opinions on terrorism, whether about intercept, pre-charge detention or reserve powers, so that we could ensure that we carefully walked the line that we have to walk between supporting and determinedly enabling individual civil liberties, while at the same time delivering a secure society for everyone.
	I probably found the evidence of ACPO, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and Lord Carlile to be the most convincing, but all of it was very valuable. The evidence of ACPO and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, which was added to by a letter that I understand was placed in the Library, outlined the extreme and exceptional nature of potential and actual terrorist activity. Clearly, the argument made by both was to say: put on the shelf a power that we could need. We have taken cases to 27 and a half days—only two, that is right; maybe six—but when that power of detention is required, it should be to hand. That was a persuasive argument that I supported.

David Winnick: I genuinely have a great deal of time for my hon. Friend, but is not the argument that she puts forward the reason why she voted for 90 days in 2005?

Dari Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have a great deal of support and affection for each other. I do not believe that I had then the amount of evidence or information that I have now. I have seriously taken time to garner the information that is available, and perhaps I should have done so previously, but the evidence presented by ACPO was clear. In the interval between November 2006 and 2007, it saw a rise in the number of people identified as causing concern, possibly involved in terrorist activity, from 1,600 to 2,000. During the same period, we had 15 terrorist attempts. I had not previously understood the quantity and capabilities of the terrorist group, but I think I understand them better now, and I hope that the House will respect this information.
	The add-on factor, which, again, I found quite compelling, was that such people do not just have an identity; they have multiple identities. We are looking at a situation in which many more people are potentially highly problematic to us. Added to that was the complexity of the situation. We have all spoken about the global nature of terrorism and its investigation and about an informal network that is working within communities. In addition, there is the use of mobile phones, internet communications and the rest, which makes the issue very complex.
	There is one more factor. The House knows about it, but it is important for me to state it. There is a language input. Some languages are becoming more and more a part of a world that could be attached to terrorist activity, and oftentimes we have very few people with the competence to understand them, especially when those languages become colloquial. I say to the House, with a smile, certainly as I look at the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on the Opposition Front Bench, that one of them is an Afghan language known as Dari. He would have expected that to be a problem, would he not?

Crispin Blunt: indicated dissent.

Dari Taylor: The hon. Gentleman does not think so. In fact, of course, the problem is serious and I found the evidence quite compelling.
	Crucially, we also wanted to see how the civil libertarian argument could be supported. We held very clear sittings during which we took evidence from Justice and from Liberty. Our concern was to consider the alternatives to extending the 28-day period. Was it true, for example, that we really would become the most anti-libertarian country in the world if we did so? Again, I shall use Lord Carlile as my textbook, but there were others whom I could have used. He said no, that each and every legal system is different, and that comparisons are very difficult to make. In the USA, the detention period is not two days at all. He said that the US Attorney-General has executive witness-detention capabilities and that they can hold people for up to a year.

David Howarth: I am interested in that point. Did Lord Carlile inform the Committee that the US federal material witness statute has been held by the federal court in Idaho not to apply at all to suspects?

Dari Taylor: As the hon. Gentleman will guess, Lord Carlile did not make that statement to the Committee. However, he did make statements that many of us checked, including the statement that we are not the most anti-libertarian country at all. We compare very favourably with others. The other statement that I would make quite determinedly is that many of the countries that we compare ourselves with, such as Canada or Australia, most certainly have not faced the hideousness of 15 very serious terrorist attempts, and most certainly have not seen 52 of their citizens die and 800 seriously affected as a result of terrorism. It is not true that comparisons are easy. I do not choose to make them; most particularly, I state that they should not be made.

Gordon Prentice: My hon. Friend does not realise that there was an attempt not so very long ago to kidnap the Canadian Prime Minister. In Canada, there is a one-day detention period—one day alone.

Dari Taylor: I did know about the Canadian Prime Minister, but I forgot about him. Perhaps I should not have done.
	We also looked at post-charge questioning, because, again, it is a crucial issue. Is it true that we could question people post-charge and get the same quality of information? The response was that in the view of many in the legal system, which, again, includes Lord Carlile, post-charge questioning is certainly not a silver bullet. They believe that it will make a limited difference to cases. We persistently asked Lord Carlile about threshold testing, which was an important issue for us. He said:
	"It is desirable in as many cases as possible that people should be charged with something approaching the criminality of which it is reasonably suspected that they are guilty and on which a prima facie case will be presented."
	When we asked whether it was more capable of supporting a person's civil liberties, he replied:
	"I do not see that as being any more human-rights compatible than a properly judicially supervised extended detention period that results in proper charges being brought on a sound basis, without the necessity to use the threshold test, which is undoubtedly second-best, as the Crown Prosecution Service recognises." ——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 24 April 2008; c. 122.]
	We were concerned to see the evidence that we took factually represented.

John Redwood: Did the hon. Lady also consider how many innocent people might be held for 42 days and then released without any charges being brought? In her view, how many such people would be a reasonable number given her estimate of the extent of the threat?

Dari Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Of course, nobody in this House would ever want an innocent person to be held. To date, we have not seen any innocent person being held—[Hon. Members: "Yes, we have."] All right, up to 14 days, but not 28 days. The fact is that we face exceptional circumstances involving horrific terrorist activities. Hon. Gentlemen decry the fact that I had forgotten for a moment that six, or perhaps three people were held beyond 14 days. None of us is perfect; I wish that we were. As we have seen, the terrorist only has to be lucky once, so sometimes the balance of the law must clearly be seen to protect the individual.

Diane Abbott: I entirely agree that none of us is perfect, but does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a highly imperfect system that led to even relatively small numbers of persons being held for up to six weeks, then released without charge back to their communities feeling troubled, bitter and angry? Would not that be entirely counter-productive in terms of community cohesion and getting the intelligence that is the only way in which we will effectively fight terrorism?

Dari Taylor: If I thought for one moment that the Bill would result in that scenario, I would not support the Government, but I do not believe that it will.

Frank Cook: As my parliamentary neighbour, I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the prospect that in supporting this measure there is a danger that she will erect a wall of resentment between herself and her Islamic community and that that wall may extend next door between me and my Islamic community—and I do not want that.

Dari Taylor: My hon. Friend says it as it is. To date, I have not received one letter from my Muslim community. I have spoken to the imams, who have no reservations about this—and let me tell him that if they had, they would have expressed them.
	The fact is that I really do not need any other Member to tell me my responsibilities. I have made sure that my community is comfortable with this measure. Is it enthusiastic? Of course it is not. I would not claim that it was, but I do not need any Member to tell me where my responsibilities lie. I want to end—

Mark Hunter: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dari Taylor: I have tried to conclude three times, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but here we go.

Mark Hunter: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Some of her hon. Friends have raised concerns about the legislation's impact, if it goes through. I ask her to reflect on the views of a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Condon, who said
	"If we now go back and make it look as though we are going to challenge yet again the point of 28 days that we have reached, I fear that it will play into the hands of the propagandists, who will encourage young men and women—to all other intents and purposes, they are good people—to be misguided, brainwashed and induced into acts of martyrdom."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 13 December 2005; Vol. 676, c. 1175.]
	Is that not the point that her hon. Friends were making a moment ago? Does she not share those concerns? Does she not attach any importance at all to the views of the former head of the Metropolitan police?

Dari Taylor: As I just said, I have spoken to my Muslim community. I was very clear about addressing the issues and to date, no member of it has made a statement that the measure would ratchet up concerns. The hon. Gentleman is right to present the case, but I am saying to him that I do not have that problem. Perhaps Stockton, South is an exception to the rule; I do not happen to believe that it is. I would like to end—

Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dari Taylor: I think that it is time for me to end. I have attempted to do so four times.
	I end by quoting from a book that I read some time ago and recommended to the Public Bill Committee. It is a clear, well-executed book, called "Celsius 7/7" by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). I believe that what he says in that book needs at least to be heard, even if it is not agreed with. He says:
	"We cannot be serious about defending liberty unless we ensure, through proper parliamentary accountability, that legislation designed to deal with a specific terrorist threat is on the Statute book for only as long as the threat exists. But we also cannot be taken seriously when we try to defend democracy unless we ensure that we show resolution in framing the laws necessary to prevent terrorists operating freely."
	That is my position, which is why I shall vote with the Government tonight.

Elfyn Llwyd: I rise to support Government amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which seek to delete the 42-day requirement from the Bill. Amnesty International published a report entitled "2007: The State of the World's Human Rights", in which Amnesty's general secretary, Irene Khan, says that fear of immigrants, fear of crime and fear of terrorism are used by states to suppress basic human rights. She develops that argument by saying that giving one group of people security at the expense of other people's rights is bound to fail, and that many anti-terrorist measures and laws have failed because they do not give that point enough consideration. They have
	"done little to reduce the threat of violence...and much to damage human rights and the rule of law".
	I regret to say that that those words are a reflection of what has been happening under this Government in this Parliament for some years now. Although the Government have decided that Ministers will no longer use the term "the war against terrorism", the need remains to ensure that we continue to feel under threat.
	We must remember that each and every one of us has a right to freedom, and yet the Government are prepared to weaken it—a task that is far easier against the background of terrorist and violent threats. Everyone knows that Government policies—whichever Government they might be—tend to be created in the tabloid press, and it is difficult to have a meaningful discussion on security and penal policy without sinking deeply into the quagmire of superficial politics.
	In saying that, I also readily acknowledge that the Government have a very difficult job to carry out. No one here would demur from the view that one of the prime duties of any Government is to ensure the security of their citizens. However, that raises the question of the balance to be struck between that obligation and the rights of the state. That balance is key to this whole debate. As Sir Ian Blair told us in evidence to the Public Bill Committee:
	"Your job is to balance civil liberties against the threat. That is what Parliament is engaged in." ——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 22, Q26.]
	I venture to suggest that today's problems cannot be addressed effectively by simply eroding civil liberties.
	There has been enough talk about balancing the freedom of the individual with the security of society. Of course that is important and it must be central to our debate. However, many people believe that the scales have tipped far too heavily towards the state's interests, at the expense of the guaranteed rights that we have recognised for a century and more—rights and freedoms that meant that we stood out as an example of a civilised system that provided for the interests of the individual, alongside the interests of the society or state. That used to be the situation, at any rate.
	We saw that keeping individuals under lock and key without going to court was inflammatory in Ireland and that it led to an intensification of the problems there in the 1970s and 1980s. I am not saying that the proposal for 42 days equates to internment, but clearly the same tensions come into play, negating rights that were guaranteed and increasing the number of those who turn to violence. It appears that the Government have simply not learned the lessons of history. I regret to say that that failure could be very expensive, although I hope that I am wrong about that.
	To be fair, the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing has attempted to create a consensus on the issue over the past few months, and his office has been open to Opposition Members. The Bill contains some things that are helpful and acceptable, and they will be supported alongside certain safeguards. However, I am afraid that those on both sides of the Public Bill Committee came to the conclusion that there were misgivings about the Bill and about the mistakes made.
	The Minister of State did his best to build a consensus, so it is surprising to think that a consensus had been built up over the past two years on the 28-day limit. Many of us who were vehemently opposed to 90 days were eventually persuaded, pragmatically, to fall in line with 28 days. Now, a mere two years later, that consensus has sadly disappeared. One must ask whether there is now a compelling and urgent reason to revisit that decision—a decision of the whole House that was arrived at by consensus. Sadly, I do not think that such a case has been made at all, and I say that with respect to the Minister of State and the Home Secretary. In all the discussions that we have had in the past seven or eight months, we have not seen any evidence whatever to justify the move, let alone any compelling and/or urgent evidence.
	Several people have been quoted in this debate and several Committees and non-governmental organisations have been referred to. I shall avoid all that, as it can be taken as read. However, it is telling that both the Home Secretary and Sir Ian Blair say that there have been no cases in which the full 28 days were necessary. I have no desire to reel off all the quotations—I am sure that they are on the record—but hon. Members should think of the perfectly innocent people who are brought in and arrested. There seems to be an awful presumption among some people in the House that everybody who is arrested is, by definition, guilty. Good God, we have not reached that stage yet, and I hope that we never do.
	We must also think about something that has not been mentioned hitherto—the effect of keeping an innocent person under lock and key without advising them of exactly what charges they are facing. I have represented clients as a solicitor and a barrister. I have seen innocent people in custody being questioned for three or four days and it has left an indelible mark on several of them. It has caused psychological problems in some cases. Let us magnify that up to 42 days and see where we go from there. How will those people's nearest and dearest feel when they return home totally innocent, but wrecked psychologically?

Julian Lewis: I emphasise that the hon. Gentleman makes a key point, particularly in the context of concern about a very small number of people being able to wreak a large amount of damage. Will he bear in mind that, given the policy on prisoner releases, putting someone in jail for six weeks is equivalent to sentencing someone found guilty in a criminal court to three months in prison and releasing them halfway through?

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman makes his case strongly, and I am obliged to him for that.
	Let me mention another issue gained from my experience—and I know that other people in the Chamber have practised criminal law. There is also a very real risk of false confessions being drawn out after a long period in custody. If that happened, it would not be the first time. However many so-called safeguards are in place, the person is still under lock and key and still has to live with himself or herself for 24 hours a day.

Jeremy Corbyn: I imagine that the hon. Gentleman will recall the historic cases of miscarriages of justice—the Guildford four and the Birmingham six—which were all based on confessional evidence. In the case of the Guildford four, the evidence was drawn while they were in detention under the prevention of terrorism Act.

Elfyn Llwyd: That is absolutely right and it took many years to try to put things right there. Clearly, we do not want to go into that area again.

Dominic Grieve: There seems to be quite a lot of evidence that detention, particularly in pre-charge detention conditions, is extremely stressful for an individual so detained. In the course of inquiries I made into the background of the provisions, it was brought to my attention that in at least one case, there had been concern about the mental health of the person detained.

Elfyn Llwyd: Yes.

Kate Hoey: rose—

Elfyn Llwyd: I shall give way, but I hope that it will be the final time.

Kate Hoey: I thank the hon. Gentleman and I agree with what he is saying. Does he agree that raising questions about compensation almost makes the situation worse, not least in respect of people who have been kept in custody for murder and then released without charge? The whole thing will bring further chaos into the situation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is wrong to suggest that compensation can somehow make up for six weeks of someone's life and the changes to it that those weeks will bring?

Elfyn Llwyd: That is absolutely right. Offering compensation seems to me a tacit admission that there is a fault with the Bill.
	I mentioned pragmatism earlier. Let me be perfectly honest and say that, despite my regard for civil liberties, if proper, urgent and telling evidence had been produced of the need to bring in the proposed law, I would seriously have had to reconsider the position, take off my civil libertarian hat or wig and start thinking carefully. However, nothing of that sort has been produced, including during the whole period of the Public Bill Committee. I have heard nothing to persuade me even the slightest way towards the Government's view. We know that the Law Society has made its view clear, as has the Joint Committee on Human Rights. As I said, I shall not mention the various bodies that have provided evidence, but I stress again that when it comes to evidence, I have seen nothing of a persuasive nature.
	When the Home Secretary was interviewed on Radio 4 a few months ago, she admitted that she had no idea at all how many days were required. I intervened on the right hon. Lady earlier, but I am none the wiser. If, as we are told, the alleged plots are becoming more and more complex to unravel, why is the magic figure now half that of the previously recommended 90 days? Can anyone explain that?
	In evidence to the Public Bill Committee on 22 April, Sir Ian Blair said:
	"There is no magic figure; that is absolutely fair."
	He went on:
	"Our job is to suggest that sooner rather than later something will happen that will make 28 days insufficient. The Government have suggested 42 days and that is a matter for Parliament to consider." ——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 21-22, Q26.]
	I say to Sir Ian Blair that that is hardly evidence on which I shall act to erode civil liberties.

John Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. Does he agree that, under this procedure, arresting someone who was a terrorist could be a disaster for the anti-terrorism campaign, because there might be no evidence or knowledge of what that terrorist had been up to? They might not know the network and all the other members of it would be alerted by that single arrest. Evidence would then get destroyed, which would make things very difficult.

Elfyn Llwyd: Again, that is a strong point and I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for making it.
	Today, we find out whether the debate is either well timed or an act of sheer desperation. We heard—

Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Elfyn Llwyd: Not at the moment.
	We heard from Lord Stevens that there is a real need for this measure and that some evidence is now coming through. I ask the question: are the Government using Lord Stevens as some kind of outrider to avoid having to "sex up" evidence, as they did with the Iraq dossier? I do not know, but I would not put it past them.

Julian Lewis: That was only 45 minutes.

Elfyn Llwyd: Yes, that is quite right. As a responsible Member of Parliament, I say that if any evidence had been produced to me, I would have reconsidered. I would have looked carefully at the measure.

Mark Hendrick: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is the evidence that he requires witnessing somebody being released after 28 days with the police having been unable to find any evidence, and that individual committing an atrocity—blowing up a city centre, a tube station or an aircraft?

Elfyn Llwyd: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a control order would not immediately kick in, with intensive covert and overt surveillance? That is a preposterous notion.

David Howarth: To add to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, the point that has just been made applies to any number, whether it is 42 or 90.

Elfyn Llwyd: Indeed it does.
	I shall deal briefly with the safeguard—the parliamentary scrutiny. It is a complete fig leaf and a waste of time, for two main reasons. If we are given merely an outline of the case and the need for an extension on the view of the Secretary of State, Parliament will nod it through and vote yes. What if the matter goes to appeal and a court says no? Where will we be at that point? That is one of the problems involved with dressing Parliament up in a quasi-judicial function—a constitutional experiment that is doomed to failure.
	On the other hand, if we are given all the details, as we arguably should be if we are to supervise the thing properly and scrutinise it, that will make a fair trial impossible. In the rush to try to get Back Benchers on board, the Government have made a complete mess of this part of the Bill. It is not even logical, let alone workable. It is nothing other than a fig leaf and, in the words of the Joint Committee on Human Rights,
	"a virtually meaningless safeguard against wrongful exercise of the power."
	Justice said:
	"By definition, pre-charge detention is detention in circumstances where no evidence has been offered to charge a suspect with a criminal offence. No amount of additional parliamentary or judicial scrutiny can hope to overcome the fundamental lack of fairness caused by detaining a suspect without charge for ever increasing periods of time".
	This part of the Bill is flawed. I have not touched on some of the opinions of various informed people on whether it is compliant with human rights, but I will not go down that road now. I know, however, that the Government have their opinion, and it is a moot point to say the least. Whatever we legislate and whenever we legislate, we should do it proportionately. This part of the Bill is not proportionate in any way. It is bad law, it has no evidential basis, it is unconstitutional and it is downright wrong. It has no place in any modern democracy.

Gordon Marsden: I want to focus on new clause 20 and amendment (a). Like many Members, I was a teenager in the 1970s. I was thoroughly aware—as we all were—of the terrible events involving the IRA in Northern Ireland, and, of course, the appalling miscarriages of justice suffered by the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. Similarly, like so many others here, at the time of both 7/7 and 9/11 I had friends and associates in the eye of the storm. Those experiences, and the history of legislation generally, have convinced me that we must do our best not to legislate in hot blood, and not to make hasty decisions in particular circumstances.
	I do not mean in anything that I say today to decry anyone's commitment to security or liberties, or to be soft on terror. This is not some macho or self-righteous exercise. Equally, however, I do not want the Bill to become a victim of mission creep, as has happened in other contexts recently. Two or three years ago, for instance, we passed legislation relating to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 which, in my view, is potentially going down that road.
	That is why I want to concentrate on new clause 20. It is because we prize liberty so much that the nature and scale of the threat, and the triggers to it, are so important. They are important not merely to the making of a case to convince us here today or the House of Lords tomorrow, but because they must convince, and appear appropriate to, the broader communities in the country—not just ethnic communities, but others—who must be kept on board in any democracy and in any legislation that we pass. Public scepticism about politics and politicians will always be prevalent, and is arguably more prevalent now than for many years. That is why we need to go the extra mile to convince people, and to spell out why the Government want this reserve power.
	Ideally, I should like to hear more details from Ministers about the links between what might happen here in the United Kingdom and what might happen overseas. There has been some reference to that this afternoon, but I want to hear more. As for the broader issue of the sort of incident that would cause the reserve power to kick in, the Home Secretary has given a number of further details, both in response to an interesting and useful intervention from the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and in the letter to the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
	Let me return to one of the central questions that have danced around today's debate: the question of whether we as parliamentarians would have a role, or a right to take a view, were the reserve power to kick in. I heard what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore); I have also spent some time trying to follow the twists and turns of the various reports from the Joint Committee and the most recent letter that he has received from the Home Secretary. I agree with him that our discussion has featured many red herrings, many misleading comparisons between inappropriate jurisdictions, and the bandying of many not very robust and, frankly, intellectually dishonest arguments by Members on both sides of the debate. However, I must say, with all respect to my hon. Friend and his Committee's report, that just as I do not want the Bill to lead to mission creep, I do not want to see it result in judicial creep. One of the issues that we must address this afternoon is the oxygen of publicity, and how it will affect any reserve powers given to the House.
	I am not a lawyer, but I am an historian, and I know something—although perhaps not as much as I should—about the doctrine of the separation of powers. I am rather mystified by the blithe assumption made by several hon. Members that we have a great doctrine of the separation of powers in this country. We certainly do not have it as it exists in the US.
	There is an enormous inconsistency in this matter, especially among some Opposition Members. They often complain that Parliament does not have a strong enough role in legislation, but when we are given a stronger role, they seem unwilling to take it up. It is not a question of excluding judges and lawyers—indeed, we have been given chapter and verse today about how they will have a role in the process—but I do not believe that they should be in the driving seat on this issue.

Dominic Grieve: As a Conservative, I do not subscribe to the separation of powers, but I do subscribe to the independence of the judiciary and to the need for a fair trial process. The problem is that that process could be hampered by our debates in this House, and I have heard nothing from the Government that provides any reassurance about that. I do not see how we can carry out the scrutiny that the Government are offering so temptingly without interfering with the fairness of the trial process that occurs thereafter.

Gordon Marsden: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that intervention. I have great respect for the fairness and balance that he exhibits in these matters, and I am glad that he does not necessarily subscribe to the separation of powers. However, I fear that he is not doing justice to what Ministers propose, or to the House's ingenuity, when it comes to dealing with matters in a way that will not prejudice future legal proceedings. I believe that we will be able to discuss such matters and show our constituents—at what I presume will be a moment of significant and supreme national crisis—that we are taking the issues presented to us seriously.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman says that he believes that hon. Members would be ingenious enough to handle the scrutiny requirements placed on us, but what do we do when constituents come to us for help with family members detained under the proposed powers? If we are asked to use the scrutiny procedure to challenge decisions and to speak up for members of our communities, what should we say—to our constituents, our colleagues in this Chamber and to the Government? How can we make the parliamentary scrutiny meaningful?

Gordon Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, not least because he has enormous experience of these matters in Northern Ireland. I hesitate to take issue with him, but I will, because I believe that Members of Parliament have a dual role. Of course we must speak up for our constituents and respect the principle of sub judice when we make representations on their behalf, but we also have a duty to represent what we believe to be their views and concerns at times of national crisis. Each Member of Parliament has the ability to do that, and we must exercise our power in that respect when such matters come before the House.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Gordon Marsden: No, I am sorry. I will not take any more interventions, as I am mindful that other people want to speak.
	As has been said already, we have to balance civil liberties and security. That is a common theme on both sides of the House, and I do not want to have to tell my Blackpool constituents that we have outsourced all our deliberations on important matters to the lawyers, good though the lawyers may be. I believe that the Government have offered considerable movement on these issues, and that both the safeguards that they have put in place and the reserve powers are significant. I remind the House of the Roman adage that the safety of the people is the supreme law. That law must always weigh heavily in the balance when we discuss changes in civil liberties and in procedure.
	Although I would still like to hear more from Ministers on some aspects of the trigger, I believe, after consideration, that the Government have got the balance right, which is why I propose to support them this evening.

Menzies Campbell: I regret to say that I do not share the conclusion drawn by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden). I shall vote against the Government—not because I am soft on terror or because I fail to recognise the seriousness of the threat, but because I believe that the Government's proposals are profoundly mistaken, and that they are wrong in both principle and practice.
	Much of what I might have said has already been eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). In approaching this matter, we all have a responsibility to show independent judgment, and we must exercise that judgment in striking a balance between the competing interests of security and individual freedom. If I have a criticism of the debate so far, it is that the second of these interests has formed a smaller part of our proceedings than I would have wished.
	When I look across at the Labour Benches, I am reminded that for a long time Labour Members voted against the renewal of prevention of terrorism legislation so far as it applied to Northern Ireland. In 1987, after I was elected, I participated in the votes on that. In those days, Labour voted against, but then, lo, there came out of the north-east a new young shadow Home Secretary from the constituency of Sedgefield, and he persuaded his party that instead of voting against, abstention would be sufficient. My point is that Labour Members did all that through exercising their independent judgment, and we too must exercise that when the matter under discussion goes to the vote. My objection to the Government position has been echoed by many Members in our debate: they have simply failed to prove the case at this time for the extension of the period of detention that they seek.
	I do not rely on the judgments of others. That is a kind of political card game: "You play your Lord Stevens, and I'll play my Lord Falconer, and what did Lord Goldsmith have to say about this?"—or Lord Carlile, for that matter. Such judgments may be persuasive, but they are by no means determinative of the positions we must take.
	I would have had more respect for the Government if they had been willing to put their case simply, frankly and bluntly. I am not against consultation, but the scurrying around of the last few days and weeks has been demeaning to the Government, and also to Parliament. Compensation for miners is, no doubt, an extremely important issue, as is raising the economic blockade of Cuba, but what the devil have they got to do with the prevention of terrorism in the United Kingdom? Also, from where have come the allegations of Danegeld for the Democratic Unionist party? I hope that none of these stories is true; I hope that they are all the product of fevered imaginations. However, if they are part of what is necessary for the Government to have their legislation, I suspect that they are not a price worth paying.
	I will vote against the Government because any time any Government seek to diminish the freedoms that are the cornerstone of our system, it is our duty collectively and individually to hold that Government to account and to subject them to the most rigorous scrutiny. That duty transcends all our other responsibilities; it is our primary duty. It is the constitutional reason why we are sent to this place, and, if I may be excused sounding somewhat flippant, I should say that it has nothing to do with the communications allowance, nothing to do with how many prepaid envelopes we use, and nothing to do with seeking to be regarded as the constituency MP of the year. Our job is to hold the Government to account and to scrutinise them as rigorously as we can. When what they are seeking to do interferes with the liberty of the citizen, that duty is even more important than it normally is.
	That duty transcends the credibility, and even the survival, of the Prime Minister. This debate and the vote that we will have in due course should not be about whether he is strengthened or weakened, because the issue is whether the rights of our citizens are strengthened or weakened by what we do in this place. I shall vote against the Government, because I think that the so-called concessions are—to use less elegant language than the Joint Committee on Human Rights did—political boiler plate.
	The concessions leave far too much to the discretion of the Home Secretary, they are—as the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has pointed out in several telling interventions—complicated to the point of incomprehensibility and ambiguity, and they blur the distinction between the responsibility of Parliament and the administration of justice. If we make a judgment that it is necessary to introduce the reserve power, and if that judgment is based on the circumstances surrounding an individual case, we inevitably become engaged in the administration of justice. The inferences that may be drawn from either a willingness or an unwillingness to accept the Government's case could be substantial in the subsequent disposal of the case against that person. I have searched my memory, and searched elsewhere, but I can think of no other instance when the House of the Commons has been called on to pass legislation based on individual circumstances after criminal proceedings have been commenced against an individual. If that is not a novel constitutional doctrine, I do not know what is.

John Redwood: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not also concede that it is a cruel irony that we who are fighting terrorism in order to preserve democracy and liberty, then surrender those things in the name of fighting it?

Menzies Campbell: Of course, and that point has been made by some of those who have been cited in the debate as having experience, and as therefore being people to whom we should pay attention. If we want to defeat the terrorists, we have to defeat not only their wish to blow up buildings, but their wish to damage and undermine the very freedoms upon which our system is based.

Paul Goodman: On the subject of Parliament considering individual cases, is it not inevitable that Members of this House will either be given so much information as to prejudice any trial, or so little as to make any responsible decision making impossible?

Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; indeed, the Home Secretary gave the game away earlier today when she said, "Trust me." Of course one starts with a presumption in favour of trusting the Home Secretary, but such trust has not always been justified in every Home Secretary who has occupied that Front-Bench post since I first entered this House, and it is not likely to be justified on every future case. Parliament can exercise an informed judgment only if the information is put before it. If the information is put before Parliament in sufficient quantity, and it is of sufficient quality to enable it to exercise that judgment, that raises precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman makes: that the prejudice to the individual may be overwhelming.
	Once freedoms of the kind that we are debating are removed or even diminished, they are not easily recovered. We should never imagine that what we now take for granted was handed out by benevolent monarchs or by altruistic Governments. They were won. Sometimes they had to be seized physically, and sometimes they could be seized by political or other methods. But they had to be acquired, because the natural acquisitiveness of the Executive means that they take power to themselves as often as they can. If we give the power back, how difficult will it be to restore the freedoms and the personal liberty that we regard as so important?
	It is not right to legislate on the basis of what might be. It is much less right to legislate on the basis of what might be when that involves an attack on freedom and liberty. The reason why I was a little disparaging about Stevens, Falconer, Goldsmith and Carlile was that we should not be moved by the opinions of others. On an issue of this kind, we should be moved by our own judgment, and that is why I will vote against the Government.

Diane Abbott: As has been said throughout this debate, the first duty of Parliament is the safety of the realm. It is because I believe that the proposals on 42-day detention will make us less safe, not more safe, that I oppose them. I do not take terrorism lightly. I am a Londoner and I heard the last major IRA bomb, at Canary Wharf, from my kitchen in east London. Like thousands of Londoners, I waited for the early-morning call that assured me that friends and family on their way to work and school had not been caught up in those bombings. I will not take lectures from Ministers about not taking terrorism seriously.
	I do not believe, as Ministers continue to insist, that there is some trade-off between our liberties and the safety of the realm. What makes us free is what makes us safe, and what makes us safe is what will make us free. I ask the House to reflect on how we got here. Two years ago, this House emphatically rejected the proposal for 90-day detention. I do not talk very much about custom and practice in Parliament, but it is custom and practice that when the Government lose a vote on a proposal, they do not bring back a similar proposal in the same Parliament. My hon. Friends in the Whips Office now know why that is so: it is because losing the vote is a clue that the Government do not have the votes. The Government machinery has devoted 10 days to bone-crunching pressure on potential rebels, again because they do not have the votes. Ministers have appeared in the media saying that they have won the argument. They may win the vote, but they have emphatically not won the argument.
	Two years ago, the House rejected the 90-day proposal. The issue should never have come back, and all this high drama has been caused by bringing back something that the House has already rejected. I voted for 28 days, but I remind the House that I and others did so only under duress. We believed that by voting for 28 days the debate would be finished for this Parliament and an upper limit would be established. Some of us were unwilling to go as far as 28 days. That is why we are so upset that the Government have come back with this proposal, reneging—as far as we are concerned—on a tacit understanding that voting for 28 days would finish the debate on this issue for this Parliament.
	Why have the Government come back with this proposal? Speculation has raged on the Labour Benches as to what has moved the Prime Minister to take this dangerous course. Some people say that he wants to try to do something that Tony Blair could not do. Some people say that he is driven by the polls. Some people say that last year he saw an article in  The Sun that said that he was soft on terrorism and he has been heading down this path ever since.
	In reality and despite everything that Ministers say, nothing has changed since two years ago. The arguments that they used then about computers and complications are the arguments that they are using now. I ask Ministers to spare the House those arguments about decrypting computers. The law exists to deal with people who wilfully refuse to decrypt computer evidence.
	The Government came back with a proposal that the House rejected two years ago. Interestingly, when they did so, it then took them several months to come up with a time limit. Was it to be 29 days, or 30, or 40? At one point, some of us offered to put our hands in a hat and to draw out a number for the Home Secretary. They did not have a number of days because this is not an objective, evidence-driven Bill. It is the purest politics. It is about the polls and about positioning. It is about putting the Conservative party in the wrong place on terrorism. I put it to colleagues that we should not play ducks and drakes with our civil liberties in order to get a few months' advantage in the opinion polls. We have got here through a process that involved the wrong practical politics and was wrongly motivated.
	Let me remind the House of what is problematic about the proposal. The security services have unusually gone public and said that they are not calling for the change. The Director of Public Prosecutions, unusually, has gone public and said that he is not calling for it. I remind the House that he is the prosecuting authority. We will hear from Ministers about the police, but the police are split on the subject. We have heard about Sir Ian Blair—whose days might be numbered under the former Member for Henley; hey, that's life—but the most senior Muslim policeman in the Metropolitan police force, Tarique Ghaffur, has said privately and emphatically that he believes that the risk to community cohesion of the proposal is not worth any marginal operational advantage. It is alleged—I use that word because I do not want to abuse parliamentary privilege—that he was called in by Sir Ian Blair and asked to consider his position. The police are split on this subject. Let us hear no more about the police as a whole being behind the proposal.

Frank Cook: Will my hon. Friend take account of the fact that even those chief police officers who have expressed some kind of support have done so in terms of "it could be workable" rather than "it is desirable"? Everything could be workable—Buchenwald and Dachau were workable, but they were hardly desirable.

Diane Abbott: Yes, it was said that the proposals could be workable in the future.
	There are some very clever lawyers in the Chamber today, and it seems to me that much of the debate is locked into the legalities and technicalities. I come at the matter from a slightly different angle. It seems to me that, if someone is in detention for six weeks without knowing why, and they therefore have no notion of whether they will be able to get out without being charged, that detention is coercive in itself. We saw in the big miscarriage of justice cases what people will sign after only a few weeks.
	The possibility of compensation which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) is trying to float will put pressure on the police to charge. Some of my colleagues whom one might expect to be opposed to the change because of its effect on their communities have been seduced by the compensation package, but I have read the letter. It talks about going away and considering the subject, and says that the compensation might be implemented. How will it be sustainable to compensate Muslims for being held for more than 28 days when the police have held them completely lawfully and not to compensate others of whatever religion or ethnicity who have been held for seven, eight or nine days and have not been charged? The compensation package will not survive scrutiny by the courts.
	If my hon. Friends want to vote with the Government because they want to be loyal to the Prime Minister in his time of trial, they should do so. No one will think less of them for that. But they should not vote with the Government on the basis of a shoddy compensation package that will not stand up and will never come into being.
	The proposal is problematic. Some colleagues say that the provision will never be used and some say it is unworkable, so why not vote for it? They say that it is just a joke and will never be used, but even if the Government never use the provision, I take exception to their saying that it is worth driving a coach and horses through our civil liberties for mere short-term political advantage.
	As I said earlier, because the Government do not have the votes, they have spent the past 10 days putting good, conscientious colleagues—who naturally enough want to support the leader of their party, our Prime Minister—under incredible pressure. People whom the Prime Minister has never spoken to in his life have been ushered into his presence twice in 48 hours. The House should have a shred of sympathy for them. People have been offered Cuba, and no doubt governorships of Bermuda have been bandied about. Any rebel Back Bencher with a cause is confident—if they vote the right way of course—that the Prime Minister will make the statement, give the money or make the special visit. That is humorous, but is it right that our civil liberties should be traded in such a bazaar? Is it appropriate or right that we should trade votes at the United Nations on the basis of such political pandering?
	The reason the Government have had to put such pressure on people is because they cannot muster the votes. They have only one argument that could sway me, as a member of the Labour party for more than 30 years: the leader of our party is in a difficult situation, there are elements in the party that do not necessarily wish him the very best, so is this the time to vote against the Government?
	That argument could affect people who are loyal to the Prime Minister, do not want to see him go and do not believe that a new leader can wave a magic wand, but I tell the House this: I became active in politics in the 1980s, at a time of enormous turmoil—there were riots in Brixton, Liverpool and Bristol, "Scrap sus" was a huge issue and young black men were seen as the enemy within, just as young Muslim men are today. I came into politics because of my concern about the relationship of the state to communities that are marginalised and suspected. It is easy to stand up for the civil liberties of our friends or of people in our trade union, but it is not easy to stand up for the civil liberties of people who are unpopular, suspected and look suspicious—people the tabloids print a horror story about every day. However, it is a test of Parliament that we are willing to stand up for the civil liberties of the marginalised, the suspect and the unpopular.
	I came into politics about those issues, and I believe that if there is any content at all in Ministers' constant speeches about community cohesion, we must offer every part of our community not just the appearance but the reality of justice and equality before the law. Everybody knows that the provisions will impact disproportionately on the Muslim and ethnic minority communities. Everybody knows that we shall not be detaining the Saudi paymasters of terror for 42 days; just as happened under internment, we shall be scraping up the flotsam and jetsam of communities. Ministers are talking about people such as my constituents, so when Muslim boys and black converts are in prison and their mothers, some of whom may not even be able to speak English properly, come to me and say, "They have had my son for five weeks and nobody will tell me why", what do Ministers suggest I tell them about a measure that has been brought in only for short-term political convenience?
	I did not come into politics to vote for such a stratagem, and despite all the current pressures on the party I will not vote for it. The case has not been made up until now and it has not been made in this debate. Of course the public are in favour of the proposal. Of course the people whose rights some of us are trying to defend are unpopular and suspect. But if we as a Parliament cannot stand up on this issue, and if people from our different ethnic communities cannot come here and genuinely reflect their fears and concerns, what is Parliament for?

David Davies: I have the near impossible task of following one of the finest speeches I have heard since being elected to the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) need not fret: we will not be on the same side on many issues, although we are on this one. In the Home Affairs Committee and in the Public Bill Committee, I approached the subject with a very open mind. I have not been shy about expressing my view in the House that we need more people locked up in prisons; I have even argued with my Front-Bench colleagues on the subject. We need prisoners to serve longer sentences, and we need a lot more prisons to be built to house them all. I add one important caveat: people should not be locked up in prisons or police cells unless they have been charged and convicted of an offence. That is absolutely fundamental to the liberties of people in this country.
	When the Home Affairs Committee took evidence, and in the Public Bill Committee, it became obvious that the Government have not properly thought out their case. They were setting all sorts of constitutional precedents that some people have not considered. For example, I think it important that if a public servant, whether they be a police officer or in the security services, believes that a certain measure will be required, it should be up to them to make a case to a Minister, and up to the Minister to make the case to colleagues on both sides of the House. Too many times in the Select Committee and the Public Bill Committee we saw that the Government were not prepared to make the case for themselves; they expected public servants to come to the House of Commons and make the case for them. That is absolutely unacceptable. If the Government cannot make the case themselves, there is no case to consider.
	We have seen the selective way in which the Government have used the evidence that was put before them, and their selective quoting of the Home Affairs Committee report on the 42-day limit. There was not unanimous support for an extension beyond 42 days. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members on the Committee did not support it. Essentially, we said that if there was to be an extension beyond 42 days, there would, of course, have to be safeguards. We went along with that, rather unwillingly, so that there could be some form of consensus, and so that we did not have to divide the whole Committee on the issue. We said that although it would have to be amended, the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 could be used in some form instead of the so-called safeguards that the Government came up with, to which I shall turn in a minute.
	I was not in Parliament when the decision was taken to invade Iraq. I suspect that I would probably have gone along with the consensus, had I been there, because I have always thought that those bright people in all parties in Parliament must know more than me, even though my gut instinct told me that the invasion was wrong. I even trusted Tony Blair when he said, "Trust in me." I have learned the hard way that we should never trust Ministers or assume that people in positions of power are any better than us.
	I did not appreciate the way in which the evidence that the Home Affairs Committee heard was twisted and turned by Ministers. On one of the first times that the Director of Public Prosecutions gave evidence to the Committee, he made it absolutely clear that he was against an extension beyond 42 days, yet his words were twisted and turned. We met the director general of MI5, and I met a senior member of one of the security services. They spoke to us in confidence, but now that a statement on pre-charge detention has been published on MI5's website, it is fair to say that we knew months ago that MI5 was not calling for the measure, yet we had to listen while Ministers gave a different impression. We have heard lots of quotes from Sir Ian Blair, and that is reasonable enough, but we did not hear about all the other senior police officers, such as Sir Paul Condon, who did not believe that any extension was justified. Throughout the process, the Government have quoted selectively.
	The fact is that the issue comes down to something very simple: if the police have enough evidence to arrest somebody, they must have something tangible to go on. I can say that as a serving police officer. A police officer cannot simply go around arresting people without any evidence that they have done something wrong, and rightly so. Of course, it might take a little while to get together enough evidence for a charge. I am sure that in the past there was a temptation to get as much evidence as one possibly could, so that the strongest possible charge could be bought, but in some ways, the case for doing that has been removed, because we are to implement post-charge questioning—a measure that all my colleagues and I fully supported. That part of the Government's case no longer arises. As Sir Ken Macdonald said to us, if within 28 days enough evidence cannot be found to bring some charge against someone, any prosecution is likely to be very unsafe.
	Many colleagues have spoken about the Civil Contingencies Act and the fact that we would have the longest detention in the western world. I shall not add to that, as I want to allow others an opportunity to speak.
	One would have to be sentenced to more than three months in prison to serve 42 days, because of early release, release on tagging and all the other Government initiatives to turf genuine criminals out of prison. Somebody who has been held for 42 days or longer without charge would have done the equivalent of a prison sentence of more than three months. What is the latest proposal that the Government have come up with today to try to make those people feel better? "Okay, we arrested you at 5 o'clock in the morning, quite possibly at gunpoint, took you off, kept you there for 42 days, didn't even tell you why we had you in there, but here's some money. Don't worry about it. You were innocent, but have some money"—as if that will make anything better.
	I challenge the Minister. If he is serious about the Government's proposal, perhaps he will say a word about Lotfi Raissi. He was the trainee pilot who was held in detention in Belmarsh for about five months, and was released in 2002, his career in ruins. He has been fighting ever since for compensation. If the Government are serious about compensating people and they have a compensation package, perhaps the Minister will tell us what he will do for that gentleman, who was held for five months without any charges being brought against him.
	The Government have relied on emotion to try to get their case across today. They have not relied on facts. I am glad to be able to distinguish myself from rebels on the Government Benches by saying that if they wanted to do something about terrorism, they have had plenty of opportunity. They could, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said, have done away with the Human Rights Act, which has given so much succour to terrorists. It has allowed people who we know have been involved in terrorism to come into this country. The Government have then found that they are prevented from deporting them, prevented from putting them in prison until they go back, and prevented even from keeping them in their own homes while tagged—all because of the Human Rights Act.
	The Government tried to blame the judiciary, yet they brought in the Human Rights Act, which allowed the judiciary to do that. They could get rid of the Human Rights Act in a matter of weeks, if they wanted to. They could insist that people who come to this country learn our language and start to integrate, instead of allowing them to set up their own communities and maintain practices that are unacceptable in this country, such as forced marriage, polygamy and female genital mutilation, to which a blind eye is being turned by the Government. They should insist on integration, getting people to learn our language and getting them to fit in with our culture and traditions, rather than passing legislation that will do away with the liberties that British subjects and citizens have enjoyed for hundreds of years.
	Just as King John had to be brought to book by the barons and the lords when they brought in the Magna Carta in 1215, if we lose the vote tonight, I hope that, once again, the Lords will come to our rescue—the rescue of the liberties of British people.

Martin Salter: It is a pleasure, I think, to follow the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), whose constituency I look forward to visiting. We will be able to explore his predilection for Taser guns in every home, as part of the Home Affairs Committee inquiry into 21st century policing. On a more serious note, I shall be quick and curtail my remarks, as a number of colleagues on both sides of the argument wish to make important contributions.
	I speak as a member of the Home Affairs Committee and a member of the Public Bill Committee, so I have had a good go at the issue. I also speak as the constituency Member for Reading, West, a diverse constituency with a substantial and active Muslim population, a constituency that contained one of the people who were blown to smithereens in the 7/7 London bombings, and a constituency on which the extensive and successful Operation Overt by the Metropolitan police impacted.
	Why legislate now? That is one of the crucial questions that has rightly come up in the debate. There are three issues. The Prime Minister mentioned at Prime Minister's questions today that we have a moment of calm. We can trade quotes in the debate, but we can all probably agree that when the House seeks to legislate in a hurry, it makes a pig's ear of it, whether that is legislation about the poll tax, the Child Support Agency, or dangerous dogs. Whatever it is, when we try to legislate in a hurry, particularly in the face of a tabloid outcry over bodies being pulled out of the latest terrorist outrage, we tend not to make the right decisions.
	Why legislate now? We must be up front about the fact that this is a precautionary measure. As the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee said, all of us on the Committee, of all parties, accepted that there was no evidence that the police and the security services were not coping adequately at this time with 28 days' pre-charge detention. We were clear about that. The question is whether we wait until they are not coping adequately with it to legislate, or legislate on a precautionary principle and in an atmosphere of calm.

Philip Davies: rose—

Martin Salter: I am not taking interventions. Other hon. Members want to speak and the hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber.
	It is, by definition, a little too late if we wait until the point at which the police and security services are not coping with the period of pre-charge detention. It is a little too late if we end up letting somebody out of custody who is then responsible for an outrage against the people whom we represent.
	In considering my attitude to the issue and how I would vote, I have a simple starting point. The first duty of any Government is the defence of their people. Yes, it is the defence of the liberties of the people, but it is also the defence of the rights of potential victims. We need to consider three issues. One is the complexity of current terrorist networks, the second is the level of risk to the UK and the third is whether what is being proposed is likely to help in any way, shape or form.

Tom Brake: rose—

Martin Salter: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Home Affairs Committee, so I will give way.

Tom Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that complexity, in terms of dealing with data discs and foreign languages, can often be addressed by additional resources?

Martin Salter: I regret taking that intervention. The Government have doubled resources for the security services and a record amount of resources are going into counter-terrorism work. However, the hon. Gentleman brings me to my point on the complexity of the challenge facing SO15, the Metropolitan police counter-terrorism unit. He himself as a member of the Committee, if he has read his papers, will have seen the SO15 statistics.
	In 2004, some 19,000 exhibits were retrieved and registered in terrorist investigations. They rose to 51,000 in 2005 and to 68,000 in 2006. Statements, messages and documents created rose from 33,000 to 62,000 to 83,000 to 91,000 last year. Action and lines of inquiries created rose from 16,000 to 28,000 to 40,000 to 42,000. Total records for legal consideration and disclosure rose from 69,000 right up to 197,000 in 2007. There is absolutely no doubt that terrorist networks have become more sophisticated and adept at using information technology and the latest techniques available, first to avoid surveillance, secondly to communicate with each other and thirdly to commit atrocities. We have to be cognisant of that fact. It is a matter of public record that in 1997 the UK security services seized just 19 mobile phones, one computer and seven computer discs in their terrorist investigations. Ten years later those figures had risen to 16,000 mobile phones, 353 computers and 2,541 computer discs. Yes, we can increase resources; no, we should not deny the fact that terrorist technology is on the march.
	The Home Affairs Committee has been party to private briefings from the security services. We know that there have been a substantial number of plots. We know that about 200 groups and 2,000 individuals give the security services cause for concern. Those numbers are going up, not down. I find it ironic that the shadow Home Secretary is happy to praise the professionalism of the police and the security services in foiling those plots, and we join across the Floor of the House in praising them for that, but when it comes to questioning their professional judgment, somehow we are not so keen to praise their professionalism and to take their advice. That led the Home Affairs Committee, in two separate reports, to a series of conclusions. In June 2006, before I and the hon. Gentleman who just intervened joined the Committee, it, under the excellent chairmanship—it is excellently chaired now—of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), now the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, came to the following conclusion. Looking at the Government's case for 90-day detention, which was not particularly strong in my view, the Committee concluded:
	"None of the evidence we have reviewed of current and recent investigations would have justified a maximum detention period longer than 28 days."
	The Committee went on to conclude, however:
	"We believe...that the 28 day limit may well prove inadequate in future."
	That was in June 2006. It was the starting point for the extensive Home Affairs Committee inquiry that has just concluded.
	Both Front-Bench teams have, in exchanges across the Dispatch Box, referred to the acceptance of a case for exceptional circumstances. I am not praying in aid the motives of my Conservative colleagues on the Committee; I do not believe for one moment that they saw their names being attached to that recommendation as praying in aid a case for extension to 42 days. I am very happy to put that on the record, but the Committee accepted that there was a case for exceptional circumstances, as did Liberty and, I have to say, the Conservative Front-Bench team when it suggested that amending the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 could deal with exceptional circumstances.
	Let us read into the public record what was agreed by all parties:
	"If, in these exceptional circumstances, a temporary extension of the pre-charge detention period is deemed essential to secure successful prosecutions of terrorist suspects, the Government should consider building support for proposals that effectively reform the powers of the CCA, secure Parliamentary scrutiny and judicial oversight, but stop short of the requirement to declare a full-scale state of emergency."
	One reason the Committee rejected the use of the 2004 Act was that it would be, frankly, ludicrous—this was the advice that we got from the police—for us to endorse an approach that declared a full-scale state of emergency in order to give the security services the powers that they might need to apprehend people who were the cause of that full-scale emergency.
	We were right to reject the CCA and we were right to listen to people such as Peter Clarke. I shall quote people who have supported my argument and people who have contradicted it. Peter Clarke, the former national co-ordinator of terrorist investigations, said on 3 June that
	"critics claim that the proposal is a draconian extension of police powers. It is not. Detention would be a judicial discretion, to be exercised following an adversarial hearing with both sides legally represented. This would be no rubber stamp."
	Justifying the point about a precautionary principle, he went on to say that
	"we should legislate now, and not in panic in an emergency."
	Sir Ken Macdonald has been oft-quoted in the debate. He was very honest: he made it clear that he did not see the case for going beyond 28 days at this point. But he said that the proposed legislation
	"would be compatible with the European convention on human rights and I think that it would be Strasbourg-compliant."
	That is significant. He indicated a willingness to use the legislation because, he said, it was his job not to see the Bill into law but to use the tools available to him. He said:
	"I am quite satisfied that this provision would be lawful. As I have said, if it was in law, we would use it if we ever found it necessary to do so." ——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 57, Q149.]

David Davies: Did Sir Ken not also say that he thought that it would be very hard indeed for the CPS to bring any prosecution against somebody who had been held for between 28 and 42 days but not been charged with anything until the 41st day?

Martin Salter: He certainly made it clear to the Committee that he would expect an adequate and strong case to be established by 24 to 28 days.
	The last person I wish to pray in aid is the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Hugh Orde. Hon. Members should bear his comments in mind, because we have considerable experience in tackling terrorism in Northern Ireland. Only a couple of days ago, he said:
	"Sadly the day will come when the number 28 is important as it will not be high enough. It may not be today or tomorrow but we have to plan for it. The overwhelming majority of cases to date fall well under the current limit. But come the day when we face such an assault, we must have the right powers available. Powers that have been debated and thought through right now, and not after an outrage. For that will be too late."
	It will be too late, because we in this House are not good at legislating in a panic.

Mark Durkan: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that we should also listen to Hugh Orde when he says that the Government should be talking to al-Qaeda?

Martin Salter: I am happy to be selective in the quotes from Hugh Orde that I use for the purposes of my argument.
	Safeguards are built into the Bill. Hon. Members have criticised the Home Secretary's proposal as having been watered down or made unworkable; I am not sure which way they are seeking to cut that argument. It is a precautionary proposal for temporary powers. It is dependent on the Director of Public Prosecutions, himself a sceptic, coming forward, together with the relevant chief constable, with a certificate to say that there is a need for those powers in the first place. We are now to get a vote after seven days. What meaningful debate could we have after seven days? During my time here, we debated the Prevention of Terrorism Acts in this House for a number of years. When we were deciding whether to extend the exceptional powers in the PTA, we did not discuss individual republican or loyalist terrorist atrocities—we discussed the state of the security situation and whether the state required those powers in order to keep people safe. After the Glasgow and Haymarket bombings, we had a perfectly good debate in this House on a statement by the Home Secretary. We had people arrested; we did not fall foul of the sub judice rules; and we were intelligent enough to have a debate without compromising the subsequent criminal prosecutions. That is exactly the debate that we would have in this regard.
	Let me end with two points. First, it is true that the current proposal could have an impact on community relations, but I have been around my multicultural community for long enough to know that the greatest and most detrimental impact on community relations occurs if a bomber gets through—that is when the damage is done. Secondly, if the police and the expert witnesses that we have heard before the Home Affairs Committee are right, a bomber may get through at some point in the future. I do not want hon. Members' fingerprints on a vote that might mean that at some point in the future we release out on to the streets someone who will go on to do us and our communities harm.

John Baron: I will not follow the normal custom and say that it was a pleasure to listen to the speech by the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), because there were so many things fundamentally wrong with it that it is not worthy of comment.
	I would like to touch briefly on two or three aspects of the Bill that deserve our further attention. My greatest fear is that if we pass the measure on 42 days, we are in effect doing the terrorists' job for them. Let us be clear about this. We all accept that terrorism is a threat to this country and to our liberties—that cannot be disputed. However, this proposal assaults our hard-won civil liberties and the common law of this land. We have already heard many excellent arguments against it. The lack of evidence is one such argument. It is telling that the Government cannot produce one piece of concrete evidence to substantiate their claim that 42 days are required. The intelligence services took the unprecedented step of making a statement saying that they had not called for an extension to 42 days. The Director of Public Prosecutions has already said that he cannot support it either. There is no evidence whatever in support of the proposal.
	We have also heard how the introduction of 42 days' detention could be counter-productive. I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) on the question of internment because I served in Northern Ireland during the 1980s, when that practice had come to an end, but when we were still picking up the pieces from that disastrous policy. I want to impress on the House just what a disastrous policy it was. It was completely counter-productive. It turned whole communities against us, and the recruitment of terrorists was made so much easier when people in those communities had suffered because of the policy of internment. I know that there are differences between the two circumstances, but the differences are not so great that parallels cannot be drawn for the purposes of today's debate. The bottom line is that people were taken off the streets, put away and not charged because it was thought that they might be a threat. That created a great deal of resentment, which in the end, caused even more bloodshed and loss of life. I ask the House to think very carefully before we go down that road. If we want to engage communities, and to counter terrorism and the threat of terrorism, taking someone off the streets and putting them away for 42 days without charging them is not the way to do it.

Paul Goodman: If my hon. Friend reads the Government's new clause 20—one of the apparent concessions—he will see that the new power that they seek could be applied abroad. It does not apply merely to the United Kingdom, but to threats of terrorism to property abroad. That does not sound much like grave and exceptional circumstances to me.

John Baron: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The provision is far-reaching in its consequences and we have to take that point on board.
	We have heard about international comparisons, but, as ever, the Government have failed to address the fundamental point that other common law countries across the globe do not need more then one week for pre-charge detention. Why do we need six in this country? Why are our police forces so incompetent—that is the only conclusion one can draw from the Government's measures—that they need six times longer than most other police forces in other common law countries? Again, no case has been made by the Government. Their argument against Liberty's figures is even weaker when one considers that the Government have admitted, at the Dispatch Box and in written parliamentary answers, that they have not undertaken a similar comparison. They have done no research of real worth on the matter. The force of their argument that such comparisons are not valid does not stand up to the test of scrutiny.
	Another of my concerns is the suppressed premise in the background to the debate that, deep down, many people are afraid that a suspect released too soon might use their freedom to commit an atrocity. Supposedly, 42 days' detention is needed to prevent another 7/7. But that argument is completely misguided. The purpose of the 42-day proposal is to prolong an investigation after a plot has been discovered or is suspected. It is not to prevent it. The police, the authorities and the security services already have enough powers to deal with an imminent terrorist strike. They do not need those powers; prevention is not the purpose of the 42 days. For one thing, the police could charge a suspect with acts preparatory to terrorism. Meanwhile, surveillance and intelligence gathering could and would continue if a suspect was released back into the community. So let us scotch once and for all the idea that 42 days' detention is needed to prevent another terrorist outrage. That is not its sole function.
	Briefly, I also take exception to the argument that, because the police have come close to the existing limit on a number of occasions, it is incumbent on the House to allow more time for holding suspects without charge. It might be that sufficient information was obtained earlier and that the police were holding a person for the sake of further questioning, given that post-charge questioning is not generally possible. However, simply because time is used does not mean that it is needed.
	As for the safeguards, they are weak to the point of being meaningless. Let us take the judicial safeguards first. The hearing before a judge cannot be a meaningful adversarial process. The range of issues that a judge can consider is limited to whether the investigation is proceeding at a reasonable rate and the likelihood of new evidence being brought forward. That is a very low threshold to cross. A judge will not be asked to consider a suspect's likely guilt or innocence in relation to any specific offence, so the individual in question will not have the opportunity to defend himself. Indeed, he might not even be there. The role of the courts is to judge evidence in relation to an offence, not to supervise a police investigation.
	As for the parliamentary safeguards, the mechanism proposed is both illogical and inappropriate. It is illogical when triggered in response to an individual case, because the higher pre-charge detention applies to all suspects held under anti-terrorism legislation, even if their case does not justify such an extension. The mechanism is also inappropriate, because it is not the role of Parliament to assess whether an individual should be deprived of their liberty, as has been mentioned on a number of occasions. Hon. Members should not be asked to instigate procedures to try to fulfil that function.
	Would we allow, for example, an accused person to come to the Bar of the House and put his side of the story? The last time that occurred was in the 1950s. Are we going to instigate such a procedure again? I do not think so. Would we have secret sessions, to allow the security services or a Minister to present their case freely? That has not happened since the second world war, and I see no proposals on the Table for it to happen again. The proposed safeguard is almost worthless and meaningless.
	In truth, no concession or safeguard is likely to be adequate, because to detain someone on the basis of suspicion alone is a fundamental breach of liberty. It is, effectively, to reverse the presumption of innocence in English common law. We have to ask ourselves why it is that we need 42 days. My concern is that, for the reasons set out in what has, overall, been an informed and intelligent debate this afternoon, we risk doing the terrorists' job for them. There is no evidence to suggest that the measure is needed. The international comparisons would suggest that we are making a big mistake if we extend from 28 days. We also risk making the mistake of producing a Bill that would be counter-productive in trying to solicit information from the communities from which we need help.
	For all those reasons, I urge the House not to extend to 42 days—to dig in deep and realise that our hard-won civil liberties cannot be traded in on the back of Government misinformation and evidence that is simply not there. I urge the House to give that great thought indeed.

Mark Durkan: Many hon. Members have made the point that a number of the protections offered alongside the extended power of detention do not add up to very much. That is true—they add up to less than the sum of their supposed parts. This chicane of hollow protections brings a new dimension to the notion of chicanery.
	In relation to the Secretary of State's power to activate the extended detention provisions and the question of independent legal advice, proposed subsection (1) of new clause 32 would require the Home Secretary to get legal advice only "as to whether" she "can properly be satisfied". It does not provide that she should be properly satisfied, referring only to "whether" she is. The Home Secretary is not obliged to follow that legal advice. Proposed subsection (6) sets out the duty to publish the full legal advice, but subsection (7) completely ousts that duty if the Secretary of State believes that such publication would not be in "the public interest". If the independent legal adviser does not agree to the edited version that the Secretary of State wants, none of the advice has to be published. So much for that protection.
	What of this House acting in the role of a grand jury? It will do so in circumstances that will at least be triggered by a specific case, although the effects of the extension will not then be case-specific, as they might affect everyone already detained and anyone subsequently detained within that period. That is what the House will be doing. We could be brought back during a recess—the Bill provides for a recall of Parliament—yet people are saying that we should deal with these matters only in a calm and reasonable atmosphere, not in reaction to the heat of situations. This could even happen during an election campaign. We saw bombs in Madrid during an election campaign and people know about the political fallout there; they know that there were doubts about how the Government handled, played with and interpreted that situation at the time, and the issues ricocheted through the body politic.
	We should think about the situation here if we vote for this Bill and the new clauses. We could be creating a situation in a which a terrorist group can deliberately contrive that its plot comes to the proper notice of the police and security services during an election. Hon. Members will be called to this place; some will have seen constituents arrested, and there will be others whose constituents could be affected by the new powers that had been triggered. Their communities will say, "What are you doing for us? We are told that there is significant parliamentary scrutiny and we have been put into the hands of MPs. You stand up and fight for us, and assert our rights." If they do not do that, what will happen? That could happen close to an election or during one—and do we not expect it to ricochet in a dangerous way through the electoral politics of different constituencies?
	Different MPs could be caught. An MP in one constituency might say to his constituents, "Sorry, I am a Government MP and I have to go by what the Home Secretary says. I have every sympathy with you, but there is nothing I can do or say." Another MP might say, "Well, I opposed that legislation and I will fight it now that it has been activated." In what position does that leave individual MPs? It leaves them in a completely invidious situation that no legislator, no public representative and no candidate should ever be in. Yet if we allow this Bill to go through, we will be inviting that sort of dangerous scenario, because the measures provide for the recall of Parliament during an election campaign.
	There is another respect in which the protection is hollow. We are told that the courts will be involved, and some hon. Members have assured us that there will be adversarial proceedings in the courts. Yes, there will be adversarial representatives, but there will not be any evidence. What is proposed is pre-charge detention before evidence is presented. The courts have never refused an extension of detention so far; never ever have they done so, and how, essentially, could they?
	This chicane of hollow protections adds up to very little. The protections are not only dubious, but dangerous. The thrust of these Government provisions is dangerous. They create a situation that will lead to the exercise of undue powers in unseemly and improperly controlled ways.
	On detention for up to 42 days, we have seen in the past how people have confessed to all sorts of things that they did not do even with seven-day detention. We should think of the Guilford Four and then the Maguires, who were brought in on the basis of what members of the Guildford Four had said. They were not even brought in to be questioned originally and they did not confess. What others were forced to say about them led to their being brought in.
	In the case of 42-day detention, will not people not only be in danger of saying all sorts of things about themselves to line themselves up for charging, but be in a position to say all sorts of things about others, in a context where this power will be used in all sorts of other ways? This power will end up, in practice, taking on all sorts of gross and ugly proportions that its supporters underestimate. They seem to think that it will be used in very limited ways, that it has only a limited trigger and that it has only limited application. That is not what the Bill says.
	We will see communities being fundamentally alienated from the state. We have had chief constables quoted at us the last couple of days. Let us just think what good community constables will say when this power is activated and a portcullis comes down between them and the communities that they have been working with, building contact and confidence. They will find themselves compromised and ashamed simply because, as police officers, they are arms of the state that has behaved in this gross way, leaving people not only resenting what has happened to some, but fearing what will happen to others.
	We have seen how counter-terrorism powers have been counter-productive in the past. That is the experience of Northern Ireland. It is not just internment; it is the litany of counter-terrorism measures that created that culture of alienation, the propaganda weapons and real new and additional victims.
	I warn the Government and those who would support them in the madness that is in this Bill: do not feed what you want to fight and do not destroy what this House ought to defend.

David Heath: I return to something that was said a long time ago by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd): the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing did a good job in Committee—I served on it—in trying to bring the various parties together on the vast majority of the Bill.
	There is a great deal of consensus in the House on how we fight terrorism. Sometimes when we have this highly charged debate, we forget that. Is there a threat from terrorism? Yes, of course there is. I was on Capitol hill in Washington DC on 9/11. I was in Aldgate on 7/7. I do not need persuading that there is a threat from terrorists.  [Interruption.] I tell hon. Members on the other side of the House that I understand their concerns.
	However, is there a need for further powers to fight terrorism effectively? Yes, there is. We have agreed the things that need to be done—the lower-order offences, the offence of acts preparatory to terrorism, the lowering of the threshold for prosecution, the post-charge questioning that forms part of the Bill and intercept evidence, which the Chilcot review is, I hope, providing is admissible evidence—and the legislation to require the provision of a key to encrypted material ought to be the answer to the question of how we deal with encrypted material within the period required.
	Is there an increase in the number of complex cases? I am persuaded that yes, there is. My answer to that is something that was decried earlier: we must provide more resources. I know that more resources have already been applied to the problem, but if there is a need for more interpreters, let us pay for more interpreters, pay for more police officers and have sufficient resources to do the job quickly. However, when I come to the question of whether there is a case for this extension to six weeks' detention without a charge being placed, I do not agree and there is no consensus because it is unjustified, unfair, unworkable and profoundly unhelpful to our fight against terrorism.
	I heard the Home Secretary ask earlier, "How would we feel if somebody was released after 28 days and they then committed an offence on the 29th, 30th or 31st day?" I ask how she would feel if, under her proposals, that happened on the 43rd, 44th or 45th day. There will be no limit to this auction of time for detention without charge if that argument is sustained.
	I do not want to go into the issues of comparability with other jurisdictions—it is difficult to compare even common law jurisdictions, let alone those that operate on the continental pattern—but it worries me not that we are so far out of kilter with other common law jurisdictions, although we are, but that we are so far out of kilter with our history, our traditions as a country and how we maintain British justice.
	I see no justification for what the Home Secretary has presented as a safeguard—the interpolation of Parliament into a judicial process. It is a most extraordinary proposition that this House should be empanelled as a sort of grand jury. Some say that it will not be dealing with the specifics of a case, but it will, because of the way in which the new clauses and amendments are worded. They require evidence to be put before the Secretary of State in relation to the progress of a specific case, and they require her to present it to the House in as far as she can.
	The proposition is extraordinary because it defies jurisprudence, constitutionality and any concept of the illusory separation of powers, which we could debate at length. The House would be required to adjudicate on whether the Home Secretary was right in her assertion, but to do so either on the basis of evidence that would render the security services inoperable in the future or, more probably, without that evidence—perhaps on the basis of a dossier, and we all know what happens when the House decides matters on the basis of a dossier. We would thus be doing nothing more than rubber-stamp, or decide whether we liked the sound of the Home Secretary on the day when she presented the evidence to the House.
	At one point, the Home Secretary said "Trust me." I am sure we are often happy to trust her, but that is no basis on which to change essential liberties in this country, and essential elements of our criminal justice system. I want us to have consensus on the fight against terrorism, and I think we established a sort of consensus on 28 days, although it was not my choice; I saw it very much as a temporary expedient to avoid the adoption of 90 days. It worries me that all the noddy heads that supported 90 days are the same noddy heads that now support 42 days. There is a strong contention to be made that those noddy heads would support any number put before them by the Home Secretary.
	Let me say to the Government that it is not too late, even now, to avoid the defeat that is inevitable—if not here tonight, as I hope, at the other end of the corridor later—and to reach the proper consensus that the country needs in order to fight terrorism effectively.

Frank Cook: I apologise for my late arrival. I did not arrive until after the opening speeches had begun, because I had to deliver a keynote address in Paris to a seminar on Afghanistan run by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
	I remind the House that in 2005 I escaped having to make a decision on the 90-day limit because I was Chairman of the Committee considering the Bill in question, and found no cause to exercise my mind strenuously in that direction. I remember distinctly saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) "David, why do you go winnicking on about 28 days?" He thought it rather unkind at the time, but I think he has since found the courage to accept my feeble attempt at humour.
	It gives me no joy or satisfaction to oppose this proposal, but it seems crazy to me. When the 42-day limit was first proposed, I thought "We agreed to 28 days when they wanted 90 days. Why, when they want to extend the limit again, do they not ask for 90 days again?" That led me to examine the proposal more carefully, and to understand the logic behind much of the argument that we have heard today.
	I do not want to go into the niceties of the legal terminology. That was done brilliantly by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). He referred not only to some of the legal mistakes, but to a range of options that have apparently been rejected—which is a great shame, because if we were serious about these proposals, they could have provided us with a solution.
	Apart from the standard briefings from the agencies professionally engaged in these considerations, I have received only one representation from a constituent who supports the 42-day proposal. All the other constituents who have got in touch have opposed the measure, but today I received a text on my mobile. I cannot switch it on, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you well know, but I can reveal the contents of the message. My constituent has asked me not to oppose the Government because of the danger that doing so would pose to the three marginals in Teesside.

Phil Wilson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Frank Cook: I will give way when I have finished my point, which is not humorous. Marginals should not enter this debate, as we are not here to talk about the political advantages or disadvantages of the proposal. This is a matter of principle.

Phil Wilson: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. My constituency of Sedgefield is adjacent to his constituency of Stockton, North, and our constituents are very similar to each other. I have undertaken a survey over the past few days, in which I asked about 3,000 of my constituents about the principle involved in this matter. Some 80 per cent. of respondents have told me that they support the Government. Has he done anything similar? How does he know that he is speaking on his constituents' behalf?

Frank Cook: In one way that is a fair question, but it is totally unfair in another way. Any survey is based on a question that can be formulated in all sorts of ways to favour one answer over another. I can tell my hon. Friend that I have not conducted a survey, but I am telling the House about the nature of the e-mails and letters that I have received. There has been only one exception to the trend, and I have reported that as well.
	We are talking about the reaction among constituents, and I had better clear up a misunderstanding caused by one of my earlier interventions. I have frequently referred to the reservoir of resentment that will likely be created by the adoption of the proposed measures. Indeed, that reservoir of resentment has been created already, as is shown by the increasing incidence of suspect plots that has been described already. My fear is that extending detention without trial even further will cause that reservoir of resentment to increase in size. The impact will be felt as a result of what we do tonight, not before.
	I turn now to some of the pressures that have been brought to bear on me in the past week. The suggestion has come from certain quarters that I have adopted the approach that I have set out because I want to take "revenge" for my "treatment"—both words are precise quotations—since 1997. Anyone who thinks that must have a mind so small as to be barely visible with a microscope.
	It has also been suggested that I wish to bring down the Government. However, I have been deselected already, so for me to try to bring the Government down now would mean that I was trying to declare myself redundant two years ahead of time. The pressure that has been applied to me shows the desperation that the Government have been feeling, but I see that the Whips are smiling and so I assume that the pressure that they have exerted in other quarters has been effective.
	The Jesuits taught me that there could be no compromise with error. I think what we are considering tonight could become an error. I entered the House 25 years ago this week, and at that time I decided to reject the use of the word "right", because of its connotations with the phrase "right wing". I did not want to be referred to as right wing when I was correct, so I rejected that word in favour of the term "proper". I shall, however, have to break that resolution this evening, because we are talking about rights; we are talking about the right of the individual—of a man or a woman, old or young, black or white—to be innocent until proven guilty. When we make our decision tonight, we must let right be done.

William Cash: In a nutshell, the problem is as follows. The proposals before us contain a procedure for Parliament to be involved in the process, which is extraordinary, because ultimately, what we are debating is the question of habeas corpus. That is why I tabled new clause 39. I am deeply concerned that although in any particular case a suspect has to be produced before a judge within 48 hours, under the arrangements of the Bill the whole process of habeas corpus will be severely restricted. It may not be a total suspension—great mistakes were made in the 19th century in respect of the coercion Act and the suspension of habeas corpus—but we must ensure that we achieve what my new clause proposes, which is that nothing in this Bill shall prevent or restrict a person detained
	"from making an application to a Justice of the High Court"
	and that there
	"shall be a condition of the detention that the person detained shall be produced forthwith to"
	that justice,
	"who shall enquire as to—
	(a) the circumstances of the detention;
	(b) the enquiries that are being made;
	(c) the likelihood of the detained person being charged within 42 days"—
	if the provision specifying that extended period is passed—
	"of any offence of terrorism or related serious indictable offence."
	Furthermore, if the justice is not satisfied with the inquiries made,
	"that person shall be released forthwith".
	I am not deeply concerned about the number of days; I do not think that that is the crucial question. What is fundamental is the relationship between the person being detained and the procedure of habeas corpus in respect of the judge. That key issue has not been properly discussed. We have witnessed what has effectively been a game of political football over this question. It is far too important for that. It is absolutely crucial that we maintain habeas corpus.
	I know that other Members wish to speak and that the Home Secretary will need to make some final remarks, so I shall conclude by simply saying that the most important writ available to the English courts is habeas corpus. It has been clearly stated that
	" Habeas corpus is probably the oldest of the prerogative writs. Authorising its issue in appropriate cases is regarded by all judges as their first duty, because we have all been brought up to believe, and do believe, that the liberty of the citizen under the law is the most fundamental of all freedoms. Consistently with this, an application for a writ of  habeas corpus has virtually absolute priority over all other court business."
	However, it is only available when there is a question of illegal detention, and the arrangements under this Bill will, effectively, restrict the application of habeas corpus.
	The most important constitutional authorities have suggested that the Supreme Court Act 1981 should be amended to ensure that habeas corpus is added to the forms of relief, so that it runs at least parallel to the other alternatives. I do not believe that judicial review under the Human Rights Act is the right way to proceed.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, and I undertake to look very carefully at his new clause and to talk further with him about how we can be assured that the principles that he has outlined will be carried forward in our proposals.
	Hon. Members have spoken passionately today about the importance of getting the right balance between national security and individual liberty. I applaud the conviction with which hon. Members have expressed their views. Parliament has shown again how it is a most formidable defender not only of our liberties, but of the protections that we need to have in place to ensure that all in Britain can enjoy those liberties. For precisely that reason, the reserve power that we seek in the Bill will be subject throughout to the most searching parliamentary safeguards, in addition to having to meet high legal thresholds.
	It is because we understand the value of individual liberty that we believe that the power should be held in reserve, for use only if we need it in exceptional circumstances and only for a temporary period, just as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who is not now in his place, has argued. He and other hon. Members have also rightly emphasised the importance of the impact of our actions on communities; we must always be aware of that community impact. In addition to the investment that we announced last week, we will review the impact of our counter-terror legislation on our communities, but we are clear that terrorists target all communities, regardless of faith or race, and that our legislation is designed to protect all communities, regardless of faith or race.
	It is not after we pass a piece of legislation in this House that Muslim children get bullied in the playground or that young Muslim men feel unable to travel on the tube without getting suspicious glances. Such situations occur in the wake of events such as 9/11 and 7/7, where not only do the criminal actions of a violent and extreme minority cause death and destruction, but they can cause recriminations, unfairly and wrongly, against those communities. That is what we need to safeguard against, and that is what our provisions are aimed at.
	The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) have made much today of an allegation that in the case to which reference has been made, where two people were detained for up to 27 or 28 days and then subsequently charged, somehow it would have been possible to charge them before the 27th or 28th day. Others have scandalously referred to that as being "sexed-up" evidence. The claim that there was sufficient evidence to charge suspects after four and 12 days but that the charging decision was somehow delayed is a slur on the Crown Prosecution Service and on those who investigated that case. The CPS must charge a person at the earliest possible point, and that happened in this case. The Director of Public Prosecutions has said:
	"When the material is sufficient, and the prosecutor...believes that a charge should be laid, it will be laid. The idea that we have sufficient evidence after 14 days, but...wait until 26 or 27 days to charge is wrong." ——[ Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 55, Q141.]
	Of course, nobody can be detained unless the detention is needed for the purposes of gathering evidence, and we have been clear about that in the Bill. The judge would not agree to continued detention unless it was needed and he was satisfied that the investigation was being carried out diligently and expeditiously. So, alongside a scandalous slur on the police officers carrying out that investigation and on the prosecutors who worked day in, day out to bring a charge, there is also a suggestion that the judges themselves made the wrong decision.

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) made no slur on the police or the Crown Prosecution Service. He made a statement of a number of facts about when the evidence was available, and I note that the Home Secretary has not challenged those in any way. Those were the only points that he made and he went out of his way to say that he was not suggesting that the overall period of detention was in some way wrong, merely that it was on the fourth and 12th day that the evidence had been available. If the Home Secretary disagrees with that, perhaps she will tell the House that my right hon. Friend is wrong.

Jacqui Smith: The clear implication of what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said was that people could have been charged earlier. That is fundamentally wrong, and what is more, he has had personal assurances from senior police officers that that was not the case.
	We have also rightly heard concerns about the circumstances in which people would be detained. People have claimed that detainees would not be able to see their families, or that they would not have cooling-off periods. That is wrong. Anybody detained will be told on arrest the grounds for that arrest. Any hearings for extended detention would include specific details of the investigation. Those detained may receive visits from friends, family and others likely to take an interest in their welfare. In any 24-hour period, the detainee must be allowed at least eight hours for rest, free from questioning, thus providing the cooling-off period that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) suggested did not exist. Detainees should be offered exercise, and cells must be cleaned, heated and ventilated. To suggest that those things would not happen, as some have done, is also wrong.
	A further misconception in this debate—and a disappointment to me—has been the suggestion that there can be no appropriate role for Parliament in this process. I have understandably been challenged about what Parliament will be able to debate in such circumstances. First, contrary to the contention advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), the statement made by the Home Secretary to Parliament will need to be clear that a grave and exceptional terrorist threat has occurred or is occurring. New clause 32 makes it clear that legal advice with which the Home Secretary can properly be satisfied will need to be made available to Parliament in order to support that debate.
	Parliament will be able to debate the general security threat; the progress of the investigation; the police numbers involved; the number of suspects detained; the outline of the plot; the what, why and when; the number of countries involved; whether the Home Secretary's decision was properly founded; and whether she had indeed received reports from the police and the DPP. That would be a full debate. I believe in the role of Parliament, and we have embedded that safeguard in our proposals.

Dominic Grieve: Will the Home Secretary answer the point that was made so properly by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) that the use of the term "grave and exceptional terrorist threat" is defined in a way that means that it is nothing of the kind? It is not akin to the definition in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, or an emergency; it could be any terrorist matter brought to the notice of the Home Secretary.

Jacqui Smith: I explained earlier the type of grave and exceptional threat that would be necessary, and I have explained how Parliament could test that.
	I hope that hon. Members will agree that in this House we should always rely on force of argument and the rule of law to counter terror. Today hon. Members have heard the arguments, and we have all now to make a decision on the protections that we need to ensure that the rule of law continues to run. The British people place their trust in us to take the right decisions to protect them. I cannot and will not wish away the threat from those whose aim and sole intent is to blow up our citizens, of all races and religions, on our streets.
	When it comes to dealing with terrorism, my view is straightforward. We cannot simply hope for the best. We must have plans in place that mean that we can cope with the worst. The question that everybody needs to answer is whether they are confident that no police investigation would ever need to hold somebody for longer than 28 days. I greatly prize consensus. It has motivated me in bringing forward these proposals. However, important as consensus is, I prize the interests of Britain's security above it. We should do the right thing to protect our people, and that is what I am asking the House to support me in this evening.
	 It being Six o'clock, Mr. Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [1 April and 10 June] .
	 Question  put and  agreed to.
	 Clause  read a Second time, and  added to the Bill.
	Mr. Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New Clause 21
	 — 
	Power to declare reserve power exercisable

'(1) The Secretary of State may by order declare that the power conferred by Part 4 of Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11), inserted by Schedule [Amendments relating to period of pre-charge detention] to this Act, to apply for and extend detention under section 41 of that Act beyond 28 days ("the reserve power") is exercisable.
	(2) No such order may be made unless—
	(a) an order is already in force under section 25 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (c. 11) (extension of maximum period of detention to 28 days), and
	(b) the Secretary of State has received a report complying with the requirements of section [Report of operational need for further extension of maximum period of detention] (report of operational need for further extension of maximum period of detention).
	(3) The effect of an order under this section is that the reserve power is exercisable in the case of all persons—
	(a) then detained under section 41 of that Act, or
	(b) subsequently detained under that section at a time when the order is in force.'.

New Clause 22
	 — 
	Report of operational need for further extension of maximum period of detention

'(1) The report required by section [Power to declare reserve power exercisable] (2)(b) is a report by—
	(a) the Director of Public Prosecutions and the chief officer of a police force in England and Wales,
	(b) the Crown Agent and the chief constable of a police force in Scotland, or
	(c) the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland,
	to the following effect.
	(2) The report must—
	(a) state that each of the persons making the report is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the detention of one or more persons beyond 28 days will be necessary for one or more of the purposes mentioned in subsection (3) below, and
	(b) give details of the grounds for that belief.
	(3) The purposes referred to in subsection (2)(a) are—
	(a) to obtain, whether by questioning or otherwise, evidence that relates to the commission by the detained person or persons of a serious terrorist offence,
	(b) to preserve such evidence, or
	(c) pending the result of an examination or analysis of any such evidence or of anything the examination or analysis of which is to be or is being carried out with a view to obtaining such evidence.
	(4) In subsection (3)(a) a "serious terrorist offence" means—
	(a) an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) or the Terrorism Act 2006 (c. 11), or
	(b) any offence that has a terrorist connection,
	in respect of which an offender who has attained the age of 21 (in England and Wales, 18) is liable on conviction to a sentence of imprisonment for life.
	(5) The report must also state that each of the persons making the report is satisfied that the investigation in connection with which the detained person or persons is or are detained is being conducted diligently and expeditiously.
	(6) Until the coming into force of section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43) (abolition of sentences of custody for life etc), subsection (4) has effect with the omission of the words "(in England and Wales, 18)".'.

New Clause 24
	 — 
	Notification of chairmen of certain committees

'(1) The Secretary of State must on making an order under section [Power to declare reserve power exercisable] forthwith notify—
	(a) the chairman of the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons,
	(b) the chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and
	(c) the chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
	(2) The Secretary of State must also, as soon as reasonably practicable, provide each of those persons with a copy of—
	(a) the report received under section [Report of operational need for further extension of maximum period of detention] (report on operational need for further extension of maximum period of detention), and
	(b) the legal advice obtained under section [Independent legal advice] (independent legal advice).
	(3) The information received under subsection (1) and the documents received under subsection (2) are to be held by the recipients subject to the terms of their oath as a privy counsellor (or if any recipient is not a privy counsellor, on corresponding terms).
	(4) The references in subsection (1) to the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons and the Joint Committee on Human Rights shall—
	(a) if the name of the Committee is changed, be taken (subject to paragraph (b)) to be references to the Committee by its new name;
	(b) if the functions of the Committee at the passing of this Act (or functions substantially corresponding to those functions) become functions of a different committee, be taken to be references to the committee by whom the functions are for the time being exercisable.'.

New Clause 25
	 — 
	Statement to be laid before Parliament

'(1) After making an order under section [Power to declare reserve power exercisable] the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement to the following effect.
	(2) The statement must state that the Secretary of State is satisfied—
	(a) that a grave exceptional terrorist threat has occurred or is occurring,
	(b) that the reserve power is needed for the purpose of investigating the threat and bringing to justice those responsible,
	(c) that the need for that power is urgent, and
	(d) that the provision in the order is compatible with Convention rights (within the meaning of section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)).
	(3) The statement may include such other information as to the reasons for the decision to make the order as appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.
	(4) The statement must not include—
	(a) the name of any person then detained under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11), or
	(b) any material that might prejudice the prosecution of any person.
	(5) The statement must be laid before Parliament within two days after the day on which the order was made or, if that is not practicable, as soon as is practicable.'.

New Clause 26
	 — 
	Parliamentary scrutiny

'(1) Where an order under section [Power to declare reserve power exercisable] is made—
	(a) the Secretary of State must as soon as is reasonably practicable lay the order before Parliament, and
	(b) the order shall lapse at the end of the period of seven days beginning with the date of laying unless during that period each House of Parliament passes a resolution approving it.
	(2) If the order lapses under this section, the officer having custody of a person whose detention—
	(a) was authorised by virtue of the reserve power, and
	(b) is not otherwise authorised by law,
	must release that person immediately.
	(3) Nothing in this section—
	(a) prevents the making of a new order, or
	(b) affects anything done by virtue of the order before it lapsed.'.

New Clause 27
	 — 
	Parliamentary scrutiny: prorogation and adjournment

'(1) If when an order is made under section [Power to declare reserve power exercisable] Parliament stands prorogued to a day after the end of the period of five days beginning with the date on which the order is made, Her Majesty shall by proclamation under the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797 (c. 127) require Parliament to meet on a specified day within that period.
	(2) If when an order is made under that section the House of Commons stands adjourned to a day after the end of the period of five days beginning with the date on which the order is are made, the Speaker of the House of Commons shall arrange for the House to meet on a day during that period.
	(3) If when an order is made under that section the House of Lords stands adjourned to a day after the end of the period of five days beginning with the date on which the order is made, the Speaker of the House of Lords shall arrange for the House to meet on a day during that period.
	(4) In subsections (2) and (3) a reference to the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Speaker of the House of Lords includes a reference to a person authorised by Standing Orders of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords to act in place of the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Speaker of the House of Lords in respect of the recall of the House during adjournment.'.

New Clause 28
	 — 
	Duration

'(1) An order under section [Power to declare reserve power exercisable] lapses at the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the order was made.
	(2) If an order lapses under this section, the officer having custody of a person whose detention—
	(a) was authorised by virtue of the reserve power, and
	(b) is not otherwise authorised by law,
	must release that person immediately.
	(3) Nothing in this section—
	(a) prevents the making of a new order, or
	(b) affects anything done by virtue of the order before it lapsed.'.

New Clause 29
	 — 
	Independent review and report

'(1) After the end of any period during which an order was in force under section [Power to declare reserve power exercisable], the person appointed under section 36 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (c. 11) (review of terrorism legislation) must—
	(a) carry out a review in accordance with this section, and
	(b) send a report on the outcome of the review to the Secretary of State.
	(2) The review must consider—
	(a) whether before making the order the Secretary of State received a report complying with the requirements of section [Report of operational need for further extension of maximum period of detention] (report of operational need for further extension of maximum period of detention), and
	(b) what information was before the Secretary of State as to the matters mentioned in the statement required by section [Statement to be laid before Parliament] (statement to be laid before Parliament),
	and the report must state whether in the opinion of the person carrying out the review the decision of the Secretary of State to make the order was, in all the circumstances, reasonable.
	(3) The review must consider the case of every person who was detained in pursuance of a warrant of further detention in which the specified period was extended beyond 28 days.
	(4) The report must state with respect to each case whether in the opinion of the person carrying out the review—
	(a) the procedures applicable to the making of an application to extend beyond 28 days the period specified in a warrant of further detention were properly followed, and
	(b) the requirements of—
	(i) Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (treatment of detained persons and review of detention), and
	(ii) any applicable code of practice under section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) or Article 65 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12)),
	were complied with.
	(5) The Secretary of State may pay the expenses of the person who conducts a review under this section and also such allowances as the Secretary of State determines.
	(6) The report under this section relating to any period during which an order under section [Power to declare reserve power exercisable] was in force must be sent to the Secretary of State not later than six months after the order ceased to be in force.
	(7) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable.
	(8) In this section "warrant of further detention" and "the specified period" (in relation to such a warrant) have the meaning they have in Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000.'.

New Clause 30
	 — 
	Amendment to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004

In section 23 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (c. 36) (limitations of emergency regulations), after subsection (4) (provision that may not be made) insert—
	"(4A) In subsection (4)(d) the reference to alteration of procedure in relation to criminal proceedings includes alteration of the period for which a person may be detained under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (arrest without warrant of terrorist suspect)."'.

New Clause 32
	 — 
	Independent legal advice

'(1) Before making an order under section [Power to declare reserve power exercisable] the Secretary of State must obtain for the purposes of sections [Notification of chairmen of certain committees] and [Statement to be laid before Parliament] independent legal advice as to whether the Secretary of State can properly be satisfied of the matters mentioned in section [Statement to be laid before Parliament](2).
	(2) "Independent legal advice" means advice from a lawyer other than a government lawyer.
	(3) A "lawyer" means—
	(a) as respects England and Wales, a person who, for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience or the conduct of litigation (within the meaning of that Act);
	(b) as respects Scotland, an advocate (whether in practice as such or employed to give legal advice), or a solicitor who holds a practising certificate;
	(c) as respects Northern Ireland—
	(i) a barrister (whether in practice as such or employed to give legal advice); or
	(ii) a solicitor who holds a practising certificate.
	(4) Until the commencement of the relevant provisions of the Legal Services Act 2007, the following is substituted for subsection (3)(a)—
	"(a) as respects England and Wales—
	(i) a barrister (whether in practice as such or employed to give legal advice);
	(ii) a solicitor who holds a practising certificate; or
	(iii) a person other than a barrister or solicitor who is an authorised advocate or authorised litigator (within the meaning of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990);".
	(5) A "government lawyer" means a lawyer who holds, or has held, an office (other than judicial office) or employment under the Crown.
	(6) If an order under section [Power to declare reserve power exercisable] is made the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament at the same time as the statement required by section [Statement to be laid before Parliament] a copy of the advice obtained under this section.
	(7) If it appears to the Secretary of State that the advice contains material whose disclosure—
	(a) would be damaging to the public interest, or
	(b) might prejudice the prosecution of any person,
	the duty of Secretary of State under subsection (6) is to lay before Parliament a copy of a version of the advice, provided by or agreed with the independent legal adviser, that does not contain such material.'.— [Mr. McNulty.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Question put, That the clauses be added to the Bill:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 306.

Claire Ward: The Ayes to the right, 315. The Noes to the left, 306.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.  [Interruption.] Order. Mr. Gale, I warn you. You are a member of the Chairmen's Panel, and you know full well that every hon. Member in the House has their own vote and their own conscience— [Interruption.] Order. And no one will ever censure a Member of Parliament on how they vote, especially one of their own.  [Interruption.] Order. Let me do my job.
	The Ayes to the right, 315. The Noes to the left, 306. The Ayes have it.
	 Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Clauses added to the Bill.
	After Clause 21
	 Amendment made: No. 4, in page 16, line 17, leave out clause 22.— [Mr. McNulty.]

New Schedule 1
	 — 
	'Amendments relating to period of pre-charge detention
	 — 
	Part 1
	 — 
	Reserve power to extend maximum period of detention

1 After Part 3 of Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (extension of detention under section 41) insert—

"Part 4
	 — 
	Reserve power to extend detention under section 41

Introductory
	38 The power conferred by this Part of this Schedule is exercisable only when an order under section [Power to declare reserve power exercisable] of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 is in force.
	 Application to court to authorise further detention
	39 (1) Each of the following—
	(a) in England and Wales, the Director of Public Prosecutions or a Crown Prosecutor acting with the consent of the Director,
	(b) in Scotland, the Lord Advocate or a procurator fiscal,
	(c) in Northern Ireland, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland,
	may apply for the extension of the period specified in the warrant of further detention under which a person is detained, beyond the period of 28 days beginning with the relevant time.
	(2) An application under this paragraph must be made to a senior judge.
	(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (4), the period by which the specified period is further extended on an application under this section shall be the period—
	(a) beginning with the end of the period for which the period specified in the warrant was last extended, and
	(b) ending with whichever is the earlier of—
	(i) the end of the period of 7 days beginning with that time, or
	(ii) the end of the period of 42 days beginning with the relevant time.
	(4) A senior judge may further extend the period specified in a warrant by a shorter period than is required by sub-paragraph (3) if—
	(a) the application for the extension is an application for an extension by a period that is shorter than is so required, or
	(b) the senior judge is satisfied that there are circumstances that would make it inappropriate for the period of the extension to be as long as the period so required.
	(5) Where the specified period is extended under this paragraph—
	(a) the warrant must be endorsed with a note stating the new specified period, and
	(b) if the period is extended to a time that is more than 28 days after the relevant time, it is the duty of the applicant (in Scotland, of the Crown Agent)—
	(i) to inform the Secretary of State forthwith, and
	(ii) to provide the Secretary of State, as soon as practicable, with the information required by paragraph 41(3) and (4) (information to be contained in statement to Parliament).
	 Application to court: supplementary provisions
	40 (1) Paragraphs 30(3) and 31 to 34 apply to an application under paragraph 39 as they apply to an application for a warrant of further detention, but—
	(a) as if references to a judicial authority were to a senior judge,
	(b) as if references to the judicial authority in question were to the senior judge in question, and
	(c) as if the reference in paragraph 32(2) to relevant evidence were to evidence relating to the commission by the detained person or persons of a serious terrorist offence.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(c) "serious terrorist offence" means—
	(a) an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) or the Terrorism Act 2006 (c. 11), or
	(b) an offence that has a terrorist connection (within the meaning of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008: see section 87 of that Act),
	in respect of which an offender who has attained the age of 21 (in England and Wales, 18) is liable on conviction to a sentence of imprisonment for life.
	(3) Until the coming into force of section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43) (abolition of sentences of custody for life etc), sub-paragraph (2) has effect with the omission of the words "(in England and Wales, 18)".
	(4) A senior judge may adjourn the hearing of an application under paragraph 39 only if the hearing is adjourned to a date before the end of the period specified in the warrant.
	This does not apply to an adjournment under paragraph 33(2).
	(5) In this Part of this Schedule "the relevant time", in relation to a person, means—
	(a) the time of that person's arrest under section 41, or
	(b) if that person was being detained under Schedule 7 at the time of that person's arrest under section 41, the time when that person's examination under that Schedule began.
	(6) In this Part of this Schedule "senior judge" means—
	(a) in England and Wales—
	(i) a judge of the High Court, or
	(ii) a circuit judge designated for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales;
	(b) in Scotland—
	(i) a judge of the High Court of Justiciary, or
	(ii) the sheriff;
	(c) in Northern Ireland—
	(i) a judge of the High Court, or
	(ii) a county court judge designated for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.
	(7) The Lord Chief Justice may nominate a judicial office holder (as defined in section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005) to exercise his functions under sub-paragraph (6)(a).
	(8) The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland may nominate any of the following to exercise his functions under sub-paragraph (6)(c)—
	(a) the holder of one of the offices listed in Schedule 1 to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002;
	(b) a Lord Justice of Appeal (as defined in section 88 of that Act).
	 Parliament to be informed if court authorises detention beyond 28 days
	41 (1) If on an application under paragraph 39 the court extends the period specified in the warrant of further detention under which a person is detained to a time that is more than 28 days after the relevant time, the Secretary of State must inform Parliament.
	(2) The Secretary of State must lay a statement before Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the period has been extended.
	(3) The statement must specify—
	(a) the date on which the period was further extended,
	(b) the period by which the period was further extended, and
	(c) the total number of days for which the person's detention has been authorised—
	(i) beginning with the relevant time, and
	(ii) ending with the last day of the period specified in the warrant.
	(4) The statement must also give details of—
	(a) the court that heard the application under paragraph 39 in relation to the detained person; and
	(b) the place where the person is being detained.
	(5) The statement must not include—
	(a) any details of the person detained, or
	(b) any material that might prejudice the prosecution of any person.".

Part 2
	 — 
	Consequential amendments

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985
	2 (1) Section 1(6) and (7) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c. 23) have effect in relation to the making of an application under Part 4 of Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (a "Part 4 application") subject to the following provisions.
	(2) Section 1(6) (Crown Prosecutor to have powers of Director as to the institution and conduct of proceedings) does not authorise the making of a Part 4 application by a Crown Prosecutor without the consent of the Director.
	(3) Section 1(7) (power of Crown Prosecutor to give consent etc in place of Director) applies only to a Crown Prosecutor authorised by the Director in person to give consent for the purposes of Part 4 applications.
	 Terrorism Act 2000
	3 In section 41(6), (7) and (8) of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) for "or 36" substitute ", 36 or 39".
	4 In paragraph 29(3) of Schedule 8 to that Act for "paragraph 36" substitute "paragraphs 36 and 39".
	5 For paragraph 36 of that Schedule (extension of warrants) substitute—
	 "Extension of specified period
	36 (1) Each of the following—
	(a) in England and Wales, a Crown Prosecutor,
	(b) in Scotland, the Lord Advocate or a procurator fiscal,
	(c) in Northern Ireland, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland,
	(d) in any part of the United Kingdom, a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent,
	may apply under this paragraph for the extension of the period specified in a warrant of further detention.
	(2) An application under this paragraph may be made to a judicial authority if—
	(a) the grant of the application (otherwise than in accordance with sub-paragraph (4)(b)) would extend that period to a time that is no more than 14 days after the relevant time, and
	(b) no application has previously been made to a senior judge in respect of that period.
	In any other case an application under this paragraph must be made to a senior judge.
	(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (4), the period by which the specified period is extended on an application under this paragraph shall be the period—
	(a) beginning with—
	(i) in the case of a warrant specifying a period that has not previously been extended, the end of the period specified in the warrant, and
	(ii) in any other case, the end of the period for which the period specified in the warrant was last extended; and
	(b) ending with the earlier of—
	(i) the end of the period of 7 days beginning with that time, or
	(ii) the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the relevant time.
	(4) A judicial authority or senior judge may extend the period specified in a warrant by a shorter period than is required by sub-paragraph (3) if—
	(a) the application for the extension is an application for an extension by a period that is shorter than is so required, or
	(b) the judicial authority or senior judge is satisfied that there are circumstances that would make it inappropriate for the period of the extension to be as long as the period so required.
	(5) Where the specified period is extended, the warrant must be endorsed with a note stating the new specified period.
	 Extension of specified period: supplementary provisions
	36A (1) Paragraphs 30(3) and 31 to 34 apply to an application under paragraph 36 as they apply to an application for a warrant of further detention.
	(2) In relation to an application made to a senior judge they apply—
	(a) as if references to a judicial authority were to a senior judge, and
	(b) as if references to the judicial authority in question were to the senior judge in question.
	(3) A judicial authority or senior judge may adjourn the hearing of an application under paragraph 36 only if the hearing is adjourned to a date before the end of the period specified in the warrant.
	This does not apply to an adjournment under paragraph 33(2).
	(4) In paragraph 36 "the relevant time", in relation to a person, means—
	(a) the time of that person's arrest under section 41, or
	(b) if that person was being detained under Schedule 7 at the time of that person's arrest under section 41, the time when that person's examination under that Schedule began.
	(5) In this Part of this Schedule "senior judge" means—
	(a) in England and Wales—
	(i) a judge of the High Court, or
	(ii) a circuit judge designated for the purposes of paragraph 36 by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales;
	(b) in Scotland—
	(i) a judge of the High Court of Justiciary, or
	(ii) the sheriff;
	(c) in Northern Ireland—
	(i) a judge of the High Court, or
	(ii) a county court judge designated for the purposes of paragraph 36 by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.
	(6) The Lord Chief Justice may nominate a judicial office holder (as defined in section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005) to exercise his functions under sub-paragraph (5)(a).
	(7) The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland may nominate any of the following to exercise his functions under sub-paragraph (5)(c)—
	(a) the holder of one of the offices listed in Schedule 1 to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002;
	(b) a Lord Justice of Appeal (as defined in section 88 of that Act).".
	 Terrorism Act 2006
	6 (1) Section 25 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (c. 11) (expiry or renewal of extended maximum detention period) is amended as follows.
	(2) In the heading for "extended" substitute "28 day".
	(3) In subsection (3)(b) for "paragraph 37" substitute "paragraphs 36A and 37".
	(4) For subsection (4) substitute—
	"(4) The further consequential modifications are—
	(a) the substitution for paragraph 36(2) of—
	"(2) The person to whom an application under this paragraph may be made is a judicial authority.";
	(b) the omission of the words "or senior judge" wherever occurring in paragraphs 36(4), 36A(3) and 37(2); and
	(c) the omission of paragraph 36A(2) and (5) to (7).".'.— [Mr. McNulty.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.
	 Question put, That the schedule be added to the Bill:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 294.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Schedule added to the Bill.
	After Schedule 1
	 Amendment made: No. 5, in page 64, line 15, leave out Schedule 2.— [Mr. McNulty.]
	 Motion made , and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 78.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Iain Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We understand that internal agreement of extra expenditure in Northern Ireland of some £1.2 billion has been announced today, so I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, have had notice of any emergency Budget statement concerning Northern Ireland?

Mr. Speaker: All I can say is that that is something on which I do not want to be drawn. I will leave it at that.

Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order to request that an urgent question on precisely that issue be directed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: I deal with urgent questions on the day. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would know that, as he is quite a regular at submitting urgent questions.

Liam Fox: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Reports are appearing in the media that there may have been a major security breach, with a top-level intelligence report on al-Qaeda having been left on a train. Will it be possible for a Minister to make a statement to the House as soon as possible on what might be a very serious issue?

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Ministers are entitled to come to the House whenever they wish to make a statement. His concern will have been heard and recorded.

delegated legislation

Mo tion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees ),

Extradition

That the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.— [Steve McCabe.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Mo tion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees ),

Constitutional Law

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2008, which was laid before this house on 8th May, be approved.— [Steve McCabe.]
	 Question agreed to.

PETITION

Driving Test Centre (Wellingborough)

Peter Bone: On Saturday, I attended an open-air protest meeting with more than 100 driving instructors, complaining about the closure of Wellingborough driving test centre as a result of the Government not getting a derogation from European Union law. I would like to present their petition, which states:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The Humble Petition of residents of the Borough of Wellingborough and surrounding areas,
	Sheweth
	That the Government is forcing the closure of the Wellingborough Driving Test Centre which is a loss of another public service to the local area. Wellingborough is part of the South Midlands and Milton Keynes Core Spatial Strategy and is expected to expand by between a third and a half in the next few years. Driving instructors and pupils will have to travel to Kettering Driving Test Centre, 9 miles away. This will cause inconvenience, increased CO2 emissions, additional cost and annoyance to the residents of Kettering.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Transport to reconsider her decision to close Wellingborough Driving Test Centre.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
	[P000210]

SOMALIA (HUMAN RIGHTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Steve McCabe.]

George Galloway: A Government ready to rely on those friends of liberty, the Democratic Unionist party, to shred the liberties of our own people are almost by definition unembarrassable, but I hope this evening to add to the issues ventilated in a recent Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme to adumbrate the extent to which the tragedy in Somalia, which so many people are now becoming aware of, is another of our Government's dirty little secrets.
	We must start the story in Ethiopia, where 4 million people, according to the United Nations, are facing starvation and 120,000 Ethiopian children have just one month to live, according to last week's media reports. Television viewers were shocked to see the pictures last week of the widespread suffering redolent of 1984 and the great famine of that year.
	The US and Britain immediately pledged $90 million in famine relief. Just one week after its appeal to the international community for famine relief, the Ethiopian Government increased their military budget by $50 million to $400 million. The regime in Addis Ababa—when I knew them in the 1980s, they were pro-Albanian Maoists—are the most militarised and heavily armed in Africa. They are in a state of perpetual war or preparation for war with one neighbour, Eritrea, and they are supporting anti-Government rebels in Sudan, many believe with western connivance.
	Most astonishingly of all, the Government of Ethiopia—that starving country whose little children are fly infested, kwashiorkor swollen, famished and famine stricken—have been encouraged, armed, trained, financed and otherwise facilitated to invade and occupy their neighbour, Somalia, and create a reign of terror in that land, which is testified to by this voluminous Amnesty International report, which, if I had time, I would extensively quote from.
	Somalia has lost thousands of dead as a result of the Ethiopian invasion. Millions have been displaced. Somalia, under Ethiopian occupation, is the grimmest prison state in Africa—far worse than Mugabe's Zimbabwe. Who has done the encouraging, the arming, the training, the financing and the facilitating? The same US and British Governments who donated the $90 million to the same Ethiopian Government who are burning their money and burning the villages, the neighbourhoods and the people of occupied Somalia.
	This Government are never done talking about the shortcomings of African leaders. Just last week in Rome, the Secretary of State for International Development was roaring at Robert Mugabe, yet there has not been a squeak out of him, or any other Minister, about the much bigger crime in which we are ourselves deeply complicit. Is it any wonder that African opinion considers so much of what we have to say about misgovernance in Africa to be the deepest, most cynical hypocrisy?
	Two weeks ago, Channel 4's "Dispatches" team took terrifying risks to bring us the latest from occupied Mogadishu. That was undoubtedly an award-winning documentary. It was memorable for many reasons, not least the scene in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office when the Minister of State, Lord Malloch-Brown, his face frozen in horror, was confronted by Aidan Hartley with the central case of the documentary makers. For the benefit of Members who did not see the programme—the Minister will certainly have seen it; she would hardly be sent out to bat on this wicket without being shown it—that central case was that, in the grim prison state of occupied Somalia, the fingerprints of our country and our Government were all over the scene of the crime.
	The President of the puppet regime imposed by the Ethiopian army in Somalia turns out to be British. He spends much of his time here—well, it is dangerous in Somalia, after all—and has property and family here. After presiding over a gang of torturers, murderers, grand larceners and extortionists, he flies back to England. Then there is the police chief whose officers kidnap people for ransom, which they extort from people living in our own country—in Leicester, in Birmingham, in London. They torture people, make them disappear, and kill them if their families will not pay. He too is British. As for the former Interior Minister who presides over an interior of mass refugee camps, starvation and misery, and who stands accused of stealing international aid and diverting food for political purposes—why, he is British as well.
	Guess who is paying the wages of the murdering, kidnapping, torturing, quisling police force in Ethiopian-occupied Somalia? That's right: we are. The public dictatorship in Somalia is a very British crime, especially as our own Government—in particular, that pocket-sized Palmerston to whom I referred earlier, the Secretary of State for International Development—are so voluble on the subject of other problems in Africa.
	So how did we get here? How did we get into bed with the former pro-Albanian Maoists of the Government in Addis Ababa? I am afraid that the answer is our old friend, our old acquaintance, the policy of "my enemy's enemy is my friend". The policy that has got us into so much trouble, from Afghanistan to Iraq and many other parts of the world, is what lies behind this obscene paradox.
	We are supporting the Ethiopian Government's occupation of Somalia because George Bush told us to: because Somalia is a front line in George Bush's ill-conceived, counter-productive, utterly discredited, "about to be booted out in the United States" so-called war on terror. We were against the former Government of Somalia because they were an Islamic Government, just as we are against the Government in Sudan because they are an Islamic Government, and just as Ethiopia, on our behalf, opposed the Government in Eritrea because they are an Islamic Government.
	This policy, having been such a disaster around the world, is now in full force in Somalia, and but for Channel 4's "Dispatches" hardly anyone in Britain would know anything about it. No British Minister has come to the Dispatch Box to explain why British taxpayers' money is being paid to a police force in Mogadishu that is accused of kidnapping people and extorting ransom money from British citizens. No British Minister has come to explain—unless we interpret Lord Malloch-Brown's frozen face as an explanation—why we are so heavily involved with a puppet regime that is bereft of political and public support in Somalia.
	This policy of backing anyone whom Bush tells us to back—this policy of backing anyone who is against those whom we, today, perceive ourselves to be against—is morally utterly vacuous. Arguably worse than that, however, is the fact that it is a total, dismal failure, as we have found in Afghanistan to our bitter, bitter cost, not least this very week. The very mujaheds whom Mrs. Thatcher's Government lauded, supported and armed are now murdering and killing our soldiers in Afghanistan—
	 It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn .—[Ms Diana R. Johnson.]

George Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This Adjournment debate was scheduled to begin at 7 pm and last for half an hour. I have spoken for 10 minutes, and the country—or at least those interested enough to watch on parliamentary television—will not hear the Minister reply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. The Adjournment debate is now starting, which means that he has so far had bonus time. This is one of the procedures, as far as the House is concerned, we have to go through.

George Galloway: That is truly magnificent, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I have plenty to say. Perhaps I will be able to quote Amnesty International in more detail in the time that I did not think that I would have available.
	This policy is not only morally bankrupt; it is politically disastrous. Afghanistan is the perfect example, but the Ethiopian Government preside over a country where famine and mass starvation stalk the land. They are being helped militarily to invade, occupy and threaten their neighbours. What can that conceivably do for our standing in Africa, or for our credibility when we lecture the Governments of Sudan or Zimbabwe?
	It would be bad enough if our difficulties in that respect were confined to Africa, but the problem is much worse. The Somalians are the tallest people on earth, but they are virtually invisible, politically, on the international stage and in this country. Yet there are hundreds of thousands of Somalians here, either because they have European Union passports or because they are refugees from the very fighting that we initiated and are now fuelling. Increasingly, young Somalis are furious, bitter and angry. They nurse their wrath as they watch—on Somali television or other Muslim channels—the carnage being wrought in their country.
	Two million people in Somalia are living as refugees, out of a population of 11 million. That is almost a fifth of the total: to scale it up, in our country that would amount to 12 million people. There are another 1 million Somali refugees in neighbouring countries, and God knows how many hundreds of thousands are scattered across the EU.
	In their bitter exile, the sons—and may be the daughters too—of those Somali families are being brought up bitter and furious at the role played by the west in the problems that they see on their televisions screens. We have spent hours this afternoon trying to deal with the problem of terrorism, but we cannot see how that connects with the way that we constantly infuriate young Muslim boys and girls with the double standards and injustices of our policy towards their countries and the countries from which their parents come.
	We cannot see the connection between the growth of extremism and our actions. The Government are always looking for a cleric or an organisation to ban or to blame for the radicalisation of Muslim youth in Britain. But those young people do not need a cleric or an organisation to radicalise them: they just have to watch the news and see what our Government are doing in Muslim countries such as Somalia.
	I know that the Minister has seen Channel 4's "Dispatches" programme. She will not claim otherwise, even though she is answering a debate on human rights in Somalia. I hope that she will do a better job than Lord Malloch-Brown did when it comes to explaining how are taxes are being used. Among other things, that tax money could be used to help starving people in Ethiopia. It could be used to keep our pensioners warm in winter or to keep some post offices open.
	I see that the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), who is Under-Secretary of State for Transport and the Minister responsible for closing post offices, is standing by your Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that that counts as being in the House and that it is therefore in order for me to refer to him.
	The British tax money that I have mentioned could have been used for a better purpose, but instead it is being spent on the security forces in Somalia, which Amnesty International, as well as Channel 4, accuses of widespread abuses of human rights—of torture, murder, disappearances, kidnapping, extortion and grand larceny. Why are we allowing the Interior Minister of Somalia to travel back and forth into our country unmolested when he is accused by aid agencies of purloining international aid—desperately needed emergency aid for hungry people—for himself and for political purposes for his political clan? Why are the Government not stopping him at the border and questioning him about where the money went that was put into Somalia and has disappeared?
	Aid agencies will not now, by and large, set foot in Somalia, so catastrophic has the situation there become. I ask the Minister why we are supporting the President, the Interior Minister and the chief of police in Somalia, and allowing them to come and go freely without answering the charges that are being made against them. When will the Government at least condemn the human rights abuses in Somalia? Amnesty has voluminously recorded them, but not a squeak has come from the Government, who have never done roaring at Sudan or Zimbabwe. Why? Because we are deeply complicit in that. Indeed, we are paying for it; we are paying for the security services that are committing these crimes in Somalia.
	The Government might think that because most Somalis in Britain do not, for one reason or another, have votes, they can be ignored—that tall as they are, they can be disregarded. However, the truth is that the Somali community in Britain's loathing of the actions of our Government is a ticking time bomb in Britain. I, if not the Minister, am constantly exposed in my constituency, and in Birmingham and Leicester and other places, to the anger of these young Somalis. There is a disaster waiting to happen. I hope that the Minister will announce today that, in the wake of the Channel 4 revelations, she will investigate the allegations properly, and that she will report her findings to the House.
	I am talking in my speech tonight about not only the current British Government's foreign policy towards the horn of Africa and Afghanistan, but about previous Governments' foreign policies, too. I remember being on the Opposition Benches and accusing the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, of having opened the gates to the barbarians by her support for the so-called mujaheddin in Afghanistan so many years ago. The policy that our Governments have followed of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" has proved to be fatally flawed everywhere that it has been tried, and it is now being tried all over again in Somalia.
	Many Somalis will be watching our debate this evening—word is out about it in the Somali community, and it is being shown on Universal TV and other Somali channels. For their sake, I hope that the Minister will come clean about the dreadful problems that exist, and I also hope that she will say some words to the Ethiopian Government.

Mark Pritchard: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I apologise for having arrived late for it; I was caught somewhat unawares as it began early. What is best for Somalia and its people is, of course, security. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Ethiopian Government are providing security in Somalia at present, and that they want to withdraw from Somalia at the earliest possible moment? Will he also join me in encouraging the United Nations, the African Union Mission in Somalia—AMISOM—and the African Union to ensure that troops are put back into Somalia in order to give Somalis that security, which they need? Ethiopian troops want to return to Addis Ababa.

George Galloway: I do not accept that at all, and it seems that I know the Ethiopian Government rather better than the hon. Gentleman does. As I explained before he came in, I knew them when they were pro-Albanian Maoist guerrillas in the Tigrean People's Liberation Front. I knew all the leaders—they are now the Government Ministers—and I know that they have no intention of withdrawing from Somalia unless they are forced to do so. They want to occupy Somalia because they have been paid to do so by the Government of the United States and our own Government. The Ethiopian Government are doing a job for what they imagine to be the western part of the international community. I see the Minister for closing post offices laughing. His constituency contains many Somalis, as does mine, and I hope that the camera caught him laughing.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I apologise for intervening on the hon. Gentleman, but I must point out that I did not laugh at anything that he has been saying so far.

George Galloway: I shall not go further down that track. Perhaps the camera caught the verisimilitude.
	The truth is that the Ethiopian Government are carrying out a service for the people who give them weapons, for the people who give them money and for the people who give them diplomatic and political support. They are having a beano in the Ethiopian embassy next week. Perhaps the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) will go to it; he will certainly get an invitation in the post following his intervention. The Ethiopian Government are having a beano in the Ethiopian embassy in London to celebrate the 17th anniversary of their coming to power, and it is going to be a very grand event.
	That event comes at a time when the Ethiopian Government's own people are starving to death. Their children are starving to death—120,000 children have a month to live—they are invading and occupying their neighbouring countries and nobody says boo about it. In fact, far from saying boo, people are saying, "Here's some more military and financial aid to do it." That is because the Government of President Bush, who are utterly discredited and on their way out, with virtually nowhere to go except Downing street on Sunday for one last photo call, regard the defeat of the former Islamic Government in Somalia as part of their war on terror.
	That is what this is all about. Ethiopia is playing the role of hammer in the horn of Africa for the policy of the United States and its war on terror. That is what Ethiopia is doing, so it will not withdraw until a new American Government, hopefully with a Kenyan-affiliated President, tell them that actually this policy is deeply flawed. The puppet regime of British citizens imposed on Somalia by the Ethiopian invasion would not last five minutes if the Ethiopian forces withdrew—that regime would have to withdraw with them. So, any Government who come to power in Somalia in the future will be filled with hatred for Britain and the United States.
	That is the problem that we keep making everywhere; we intervene either to prop up tyrants or to support tyrants because we do not like the tyrants that they are fighting against, and we generate still more problems for ourselves. We wonder why that is, and we agonisingly debate anti-terrorism laws. We wonder why so many people in the Muslim world want to hurt us. We wonder why so many young people in the Muslim world are so bitter and angry about us that they want to hurt us. Is it any wonder? Can it be any wonder to any sane person? I beg the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to believe me when I say that it is because of the kinds of policies that I have described. I talk to Somalis all the time, and I know that the rage the Somali community both in Britain and around the world feels about Britain and America's role in their country generates terrorists. As the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who saved the Government's bacon earlier this evening, is in his place and as we spent so many hours discussing anti-terrorism, let me spell it out: we are making new terrorists in Britain with our policy towards Somalia, with our double standards and with our hypocrisy.

Mark Pritchard: Although the Government of Ethiopia are not perfect—indeed, there are Governments closer to home who are not perfect—it is right that human rights abuses by the Somali security services are fully investigated. Nevertheless, does the hon. Gentleman accept that if Ethiopian troops withdrew, it would create a security vacuum in which terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, would create mayhem in the horn of Africa, which is a key strategic location, and that would come back to haunt us?

George Galloway: I said in this House when it was recalled a few days after the atrocity of 9/11 that if we handled it the wrong way we would make 10,000 new bin Ladens. We have handled it the wrong way, and we have made 10,000 new bin Ladens. The problem of al-Qaeda in Somalia has been made worse by the western intervention and the Ethiopian invasion. Far more people have been recruited to a narrow, fundamentalist, separatist, violent Islamism by our policy than ever would have been if that policy had never been formed.
	The hon. Gentleman obviously has not read the Amnesty International document. The Ethiopian forces are not providing security: they are providing mass murder and terror in occupied Somalia. The refugee camps are full with 2 million people. No one can walk on the streets of Mogadishu. Channel 4's reporters were almost killed making their programme. Some of the team on the same vehicle with them were shot dead live on television—

Mark Pritchard: By Somalis.

George Galloway: I do not know if they were shot by Somalis or Ethiopians. The point is that the country has been plunged into utter lawlessness, and to pretend that the Ethiopian Government are providing security is completely ridiculous. The words Somalia and security should not even be mentioned in the same sentence.
	There may be a need for African Union forces or Arab League forces. This conflict will go on and I hope that the Minister will not claim that the deal reached this week is any kind of solution to the problem. The people who are doing the fighting are not involved in the deal. It is like a peace process in the north of Ireland that excluded the people who were doing the fighting. That is what has happened in relation to Somalia in the past few days.
	I am grateful for the extra time that I had for this debate, and I apologise for my churlish point of order, which turned out to be entirely misconceived. I hope for some answers from the Minister this evening.

Meg Munn: I welcome the opportunity to reply to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway) in this debate. I see this as an excellent chance to highlight how the Foreign and Commonwealth Office seeks to address a number of issues relating to Somalia.
	As my noble Friend Lord Malloch-Brown, the Minister for Africa, said in his statement this afternoon, we congratulate the Somali transitional federal Government and the Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia on reaching agreement on the cessation of violence. That agreement was signed by both parties in Djibouti on Monday and was witnessed by members of the international community. I wish to thank the UN Secretary-General's special representative, Ahmedou Ould Abdallah, on his continued efforts to mediate in the talks between the parties which resulted in the agreement. This is a positive step and we look forward to all parties fulfilling their commitment to cease armed confrontation. We are committed to working with the UN to support this process.
	Human rights issues in Somalia are longstanding and complex. They cannot be attributed to any one cause, and there are no easy or obvious solutions. Somalia is not like other countries. Serious violence, lack of governance structures and the deteriorating humanitarian situation have been ongoing for 17 years. Many in Somali society have been brutalised by years of violence. It is therefore often individuals, not answerable to any particular group or commander, who carry out abuses on their own initiative. That makes it even more difficult to prevent further abuses and to bring those responsible to justice.
	Given that complexity and the insecurity in Somalia, there is little opportunity to monitor the situation reliably or gather and verify facts or allegations. Reporting is often biased and may be exaggerated to exert influence on the international community. The only sustainable way to address human rights in the long term is to engage in effective state building, concentrating on developing institutions, parliamentary accountability, an inclusive security sector and delivery of basic services. Short-term fixes that do not focus on state building will mean we return to the issue year after year, prolonging the suffering of the Somali people.
	Reports of incidents and accusations of human rights abuses by Ethiopian troops are difficult to corroborate and have been categorically denied by the Ethiopian Government. Ethiopian troops in Somalia are carrying out a role that security providers in Somalia do not have the capacity for. Many critics forget that fighting between militias went on for 15 years before Ethiopia intervened, at the invitation of Somalia's transitional federal Government.
	African Union member nations have not yet committed to contributing sufficient troops to allow for full deployment of the African Union mission in Somalia, which currently has only 2,400 of the 8,000 troops mandated. Further planning for a possible UN mission was called for by UN Security Council resolution 1814, although that is unlikely to be mandated soon. Evidence from other Ethiopian peacekeeping deployments indicates that they make a positive contribution to missions. Ethiopian troops are likely to form the largest contingent of the UN-African Union mission in Darfur.
	We regularly engage with human rights organisations, listen to their views and appreciate their efforts to gather information and evidence on human rights. We and they fully acknowledge that allegations of abuse are made against all parties to the conflict in Somalia. We sponsored an Arria meeting at the United Nations in New York on 31 March to enable Governments and the non-governmental organisation community freely to discuss human rights and humanitarian issues and to exchange views on how to achieve progress in Somalia.
	The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow might be interested to know that in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I said:
	"We unreservedly condemn all proven incidents of human rights abuse and expect those responsible to face justice."—[ Official Report, 3 June 2008; Vol. 476, c. 832W.]
	My noble Friend the Minister for Africa, Lord Malloch-Brown, raised the issue of human rights in Somalia with the Ethiopian Prime Minister in late January 2008. Our ambassador to Ethiopia regularly raises the issue of respect for human rights in Somalia at senior levels of the Ethiopian Government. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials in London and at the UN have also raised the issue with their Ethiopian counterparts.
	Ethiopia has told us that it intends to withdraw from Somalia and that it has reduced force numbers by more than half since late February 2007. The Ethiopian Government are extremely positive about the newly signed peace agreement, which includes a strategy for their withdrawal from Somalia. Until Ethiopia withdraws its troops completely, we urge it to use only appropriate force, adhere to international humanitarian law and respect human rights. However, for Ethiopia to withdraw from Somalia before an effective alternative force has been established would risk creating a dangerous security vacuum. Somalis would suffer the most from such a development.
	The UK is a leading contributor to world efforts to rebuild the Somali state. We support the efforts of the UN Secretary-General's special representative for Somalia to engage with civil society and to help bring about social and political reconciliation that will lead to greater respect for human rights and religious freedoms for all Somalis. Through helping to shape UN Security Council policy, and our membership of the EU and the international contact group, we press for greater focus on human rights in Somalia. We asked the UN to enhance its capacity to monitor and report on the human rights situation in Somalia and fully supported the Human Rights Council resolution on 20 March to renew the mandate of an independent expert. Both UN Security Council resolution 1814, unanimously adopted on 15 May, and the EU General Assembly and External Relations Council conclusions, adopted on 26 May, support the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, including the independent expert for Somalia, and encourage them to undertake a fact-finding and assessment mission to Somalia to address the human rights situation.
	We co-chair the donors group and are the second largest bilateral humanitarian and development donor. We are also the second largest bilateral donor, after the US, for the African Union mission to Somalia. We are a key donor to the UN Development Programme effort to develop a full justice system, including improving the police force and the judiciary and penal systems to an internationally acceptable standard. I understand that the hon. Gentleman thought that that issue was a matter for the Department for International Development, but I can confirm that it is a policy area of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
	We value human rights highly. No other states are as active as the UK on human rights issues in Somalia. We urge other states to join our efforts and encourage international human rights organisations to concentrate their advocacy activities on pressing other less active states for support, too.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock.